life. It is not the priority of time that makes any difference; but that of causation. Holinesss may precede justification, as to time, and it may be necessary, on some account, that it should precede it, and yet have no causal influence on it. The self-abasement of the publican preceded his going down to his house justified; yet it was not on this ground that his justification rested. Holiness, on the other hand, may follow justification, as to time; and yet, for any thing that this will prove, may be that which is accounted for righteousness. The righteousness of Christ was imputed to old testament believers long before it was actually wrought: and good was promised to Abraham, on the ground that God knew him, that he would command his children, and his household after him.*

It was the denial of personal holiness being necessary to justification, as a procuring cause, and not any thing which regarded the time of it, that excited those objections against the doctrine as leading to licentiousness, which are repelled in the epistle to the Romans, and which have been pleaded in this controversy. The doctrine here defended is liable to the same: not justly indeed: neither was that of the apostle: but so long as we maintain that acceptance with God is wholly out of regard to the righteousness of another, and not for any thing done by us, before, in, or after believing, a self-righteous spirit will be offended, and reproach the doctrine as immoral.

* Gen. xviii. 18, 19.

The argument for the necessity of a sinner's being an enemy to God at the time of his justification, in order to its being wholly of grace, resembles that of some divines, who for the same purpose have pleaded for our being justified from eternity. They seem to have supposed that if God justified us before we had any existence, or could have performed any good works, it must be on the footing of grace. Yet these divines maintained, that some men were ordained to condemnation from eternity; and that as a punishment for their sin, which God foresaw. But if an eternal decree of condemnation might rest upon foreseen evil, who does not perceive that an eternal decree of justification might equally rest upon foreseen good? The truth is, the freeness of justification does not depend upon the date of it.

Mr. M. charges the sentiment he opposes as a perversion of the apostle's doctrine; and with making justification to be at least," as it were, by the works of the law." Yet he is fully aware that whatever is pleaded in behalf of the holy nature of faith, it is not supposed to justify us as a work, or holy exercise, or as being any part of that which is accounted unto us for righteousness; but merely as that which unites to Christ, for the sake of whose righteousness alone we are accepted. I have no idea of merit, either of condignity or congruity, or of justification being bestowed as a reward to believing, any more than he has. But I shall be told that this is "a caution which intimates an apprehension that my idea of faith is very liable to such

a misconstruction."* And was the apostle's doctrine liable to no misconstruction; and did he use no caution to guard against it? Is Mr. M.'s doctrine liable to none; and does he never use caution for the same purpose? What else does he mean, when discoursing on God's justifying the ungodly, he adds, "Faith, indeed, as a principle of action, worketh by love; but it is not as thus working, that it is imputed for righteousness."† I confess, I am not able to discern the difference between this distinction, and that which he discards for if there be any meaning in words, either in the apostle's or his, faith does work by love, and that from its first existence and its thus working belongs to it as genuine, justifying, faith: but though it always possessed this property, and without it could not have been genuine; yet it is not on this account, or in a way of reward, that we are said to be justified by it.

If he allege, that the property of working by love does not belong to the nature of faith as justifying, and that, in the order of time we are justified by it, previously to its thus working, he must contradict the apostle, who speaks of receiving the love of the truth THAT WE MAY BE SAVED, and pronounceth those persons unbelievers who do not thus receive it. His own words also will in this case be ill

* On the Commission, p. 76. ‡ Thess. ii. 10—12. 1 Cor. i. 30. Rom. viii. 1.

† p. 84.

Phil. iii. 9. Ephes. i. 6.

adapted to express his ideas. Instead of saying, "Faith indeed worketh by love, but it is not as thus working that it justifies; he ought to have said to this effect, Faith indeed worketh by love; but it is not till it has first performed its office in respect of justification, and which it does previous to its working at all.

The scriptures constantly represent union with Christ as the foundation of our interest in the blessing of justification.-Of him are ye In Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us righteousness-That I may be found IN him, not having my own righteousness which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ-We are accepted IN the belovedThere is no condemnation to them that are IN Christ Jesus. Now faith in him being that by which this union is effected, hence arises the necessity of it in order to justification. It is that by which, as in a marriage, we are joined to the Lord; and so, by his gracious constitution of things, are interested in all he is, and all he possesses. And thus it is supposed that living faith, or faith that worketh by love is necessary to justification; not as being the ground of our acceptance with God; not as a virtue of which justification is the reward; but as that without which we could not be united to a living Redeemer.

But we are told, “If any thing holy in us be "rendered necessary to our being accepted of God,

+ Gal. v. 6.

"(no matter under what consideration) we pervert "the apostle's doctrine, and make justification to "be at least, as it were by the works of the law." Is Mr. M. sure that he does not pervert, or at least sadly misapply the apostle's words? Whatever be the meaning of the phrase, as it were, it does not describe the principles of those who renounce all dependance upon their own holiness, and plead for the holy nature of faith only as being necessary to render it genuine, and consequently to unite us to a holy Saviour. The characters there referred to were ungodly men, who relied upon their own works for justification, stumbling at the stumbling-stone.

That we may judge whether this assertion be well founded, it is necessary to examine the evidence on which it rests: and this if I mistake not, is confined to the phraseology of a single passage of scripture. If this passage (namely, Rom. iv. 4, 5.) do not prove the point for which it is alleged, I know of no other that does; and what is more, the whole tenor of scripture teaches a doctrine directly opposite; that is to say, that REPENTANCE PRECEDES FORGIVENESS. But waving this we will attend to the passage itself. If by him that worketh not, and the ungodly whom God justifieth, be meant persons who at the time had never done any good thing in the sight of God, and who were actually under the dominion of enmity against him, Mr. M.'s assertion will be granted him: but if these terms be meant to describe persons who work not with