a fuitable improvement of it, then, without all question, something more than the fimple knowledge, or perfuafion of the bare truth is neceffary to justification. Yet this is the very fentiment against which the most of his reasoning about the gospel, and faith, feems to be levelled, and which he en veighs against in his antagonists, as a manifest perverfion of the true apoftolic gospel. Thus when speaking of some scriptural expreffions of faith, which have ever been thought, by orthodox divines, to imply fomething more than a simple knowledge, or general belief of the bare truth, he says, " It is not

66

my business to diftinguish these expressions in the many paffages where they occur: but this much may be faid in the general, that if by any of "them more be understood, than the fimple knowledge or perfuafion of the truth, then something " more than faith is understood, fomething more. "than is necessary to justification *."

These words do evidently contradict the passage formerly quoted, in which he plainly allows, that men may believe the fsimple truth, and yet not be justified; because they believe it in a different sense from the apostles. And from what has been already observed it appears, that what he calls the apoftolic sense of the truth is a very compound sense, including no less than all those Antinomian, Popishand Socinian notions which he has artfully blended together in his letters, and recommended to the public under the name of the ancient apoftolic gospel.

We have too often had occasion already to take notice of fome of the mean artifices by which this writer, endeavours to conceal the true state of the question, and shift the point in controversy between him and his antagonists; and we have no where a

J

more glaring instance of scandalous disingenuity, and gross prevarication, than in his reasoning on this fubject. At one time he afferts in very strong terms, that juftifying faith implies no more than the knowledge and perfuafion of the bare truth, that Jesus is the Chrift, or that he died and rofe again, and tells us that every one who believes the fame truth which the apostles believed, has equally precious faith with them: - at another time he af-. firms with no less confidence, that this truth muft be believed in the fenfe of the apostles, or no knowledge or belief of it will be available to justification. But the wretched ambiguity and fallacy of his reasoning with regard to this point will best appear from his own words. Thus he speaks: "The saving truth which the apostles believed, was, That Jefus is the Christ. The apostles had "one uniform fixed sense to these words, and the "whole New Testament is writ to ascertain to us " in what sense they understood them. Every one " who believes that Jesus is the Chrift in a different " sense from the apostles, or who maintains any

"

thing in connection with these words fubverfive " of their real meaning, believes a falfhood; so his " faith cannot fave him. In the days of the apof"tles many affirmed along with them, that Jesus.. " is the Christ, who yet meant very differently " from them. The far greater part of Christen" dom will affirm in like manner; yet we shall " not easily find many who, when they come to ex"plain themselves, have the same meaning with the "apostles. - Let us then lay aside all questions "about faith, or how a man believes ; and let the " only question be, What does he believe? What " sense does he put on the apoftolic doctrine about "the way of falvation *?"

* Letters, p. 302.

Here

Here we have a number of loose assertions thrown

together, with no other design, fo far as I can per ceive, but to perplex and darken the matter in debate. The true state of the question between Palamon and his opponents is, Whether a mere general affent to the truth of the proposition afore-mentioned, or any other of a like nature contained in the New Testament, is all that is to be understood by justifying and saving faith? or, Whether this does not alfo imply such a perfuafion of the truth relating to the divine person, mission, and work of Chrift, as includes in it a refting our hopes of acceptance with God, and eternal salvation, upon him alone? As the former is frequently affirmed by our author in opposition to the latter, he ought to have brought his proofs in confirmation of it from the apoftolic writings, and not have amused us with a question of a very different import, namely, What, sense do we put on the apoftolic doctrine concerning the way of falvation? which leads us wholly off from the point in debate, and is so general and vague, that all who profess Chriftianity will readily frame such an answer to it as best suits their several hypotheses in religion, and that system of principles each different fect has formed as most agreeable to the apoftolic doctrine.

The letter writer must certainly have had a very mean opinion of the judgment and understanding of his readers, if he imagined they would be so weak as to take these two questions, What does " he believe? What Tenfe does he put on the apo" stolic doctrine about the way of falvation?" for questions precisely of the fame import; when it must be evident to every one that they are widely different; and that the last is most impertinently propofed by one who maintains, that the simple know

L5

knowledge or belief of the bare truth, or of the fimple facts recorded in the New Testament, with. relation to the death and refurrection of Jesus, is all that is necessary to justification, or the fame with justifying faith; fince this is really to question the truth of his own hypothefis; and in effect to ask, Whether the fimple belief of the bare truth, as he calls it, is all that is necessary to justification ? after. he has in the strongest terms asserted that it is.

If a general affent to the fimple truth was really all that is necessary to justification, or all that in the New Testament is meant by justifying and saving faith, one would think it must necessarily follow, that all with whom it is to be found are justified, and will accordingly be faved, whatever mistakes they may labour under as to matters of less confequence. But this notion is too gross to be admitted, and would have obliged Palemon and his friends to judge more charitably of those who differ from them, and cannot be prevailed upon to subscribe to their peculiar tenets, than they have any inclination to do. Besides, a conceffion of this kind would no way confift with those high and self-applauding imaginations which they are pleased to entertain of their own dignity and importance, as being the only apoftolic Chriftians, the only friends and lovers of the ancient gospel; neither would it leave any room forese invidious calumnies which they so liberally throw out against their opponents as perverters of the gofpel of Chrift, &c. Therefore Palemon thinks fit to tell us, that the faith of the simple truth cannot save any, uniess they believe it in a certain fenfe. This he is pleased to call the sense of the apostles; but, in fact, it is only the sense which he and his r-d father Mr. J. G. have thought fit to give of the apoftolic writings; a sense evidently contrary.

to

to, and fubversive of the true doctrine of the grace of God; as we have partly shewn already, and may have occafion to shew more fully afterwards.

But whatever might be Palæmon's design in granting that a simple belief of the truth, or of the facts recorded in the New Testament concerning the death and refurrection of Jesus, is not of itself fufficient to juftification, unless we believe them in the sense of the apostles; we readily admit the conceffion, and doubt not but by the help of it we shall be able to shew the falfity and absurdity of the strange notions he has advanced with respect to juftifying faith, and would have us to receive and embrace as part of the apoftolic gospel. So far we are di posed to agree with him as frankly to acknowledge, that to believe that Jesus is the Christ, or that he died and rose again, in the sense of the apostles, or as those fundamental truths are proposed and explained in their writings, for the encouragement and comfort of guilty finners, who can do nothing, and have nothing in or about them, to recommend them to the favour of God, or avert his wrath due to them for their fin, both original and actual, is true justifying faith. When he tells us, that the whole New Testament is writ to afcertain to us in what sense the apostles understood these truths, he in effect appeals to their writings, as giving a genuine explication, and directing to a suitable improvement of them.

Has Palæmon appealed to the apoftolic writings ? To the apoftolic writings he shall go. We are willing that the whole matter be tried and examined at the bar of these Holy Oracles. The question, then, is, How, or in what manner, the facts and doctrines relating to the death and refurrection of Jesus, are explained and set forth in the apoftolic writings, fo as to lay an immediate foundation for the faith of