a fuitable improvement of it; then, without all queftion, fomething more than the fimple knowledge, or perfuafion of the bare truth is neceffary to juftification. Yet this is the very fentiment againft which the most of his reafoning about the gospel, and faith, feems to be levelled, and which he enveighs against in his antagonifts, as a manifeft perverfion of the true apoftolic gofpel. Thus when fpeaking of fome fcriptural expreffions of faith, which have ever been thought, by orthodox divines, to imply fomething more than a fimple knowledge, or general belief of the bare truth, he fays, "It is not my business to distinguish these expreffions 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 know

66

ledge or perfuafion of the truth, then fomething "more than faith is understood, fomething more. than is neceffary to justification *.”

These words do evidently contradict the paffage formerly quoted, in which he plainly allows, that men may believe the fimple truth, and yet not be juftified; because they believe it in a different sense from the apoftles. And from what has been already obferved it appears, that what he calls the apoftolic fenfe of the truth-is a very compound fenfe, including no less than all thofe Antinomian, Popish and 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 occafion already to take notice of fome of the mean artifices by which this writer, endeavours to conceal the true ftate of the queftion, and fhift, the point in controverfy between him and his antagonists; and we have no where a

more glaring inftance of fcandalous difingenuity, and grofs prevarication, than in his reafoning 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 Jefus is the Chrift, or that he died and rofe again, and tells us that every one who believes the fame truth which the apoftles believed, has equally pre cious faith with them: at another time he affirms with no lefs confidence, that this truth must be believed in the fenfe of the apoftles, or no knowledge or belief of it will be available to juftification. But the wretched ambiguity and fallacy of his reafoning with regard to this point will beft ap pear from his own words. Thus he speaks:

The faving truth which the apoftles believed, was, That Jefus is the Chrift. The apostles had one uniform fixed fenfe to thefe words, and the "whole New Teftament is writ to afcertain to us "in what fenfe they underflood them. Every one "who believes that Jefus is the Chrift in a different "fense from the apottles, or who maintains any "thing in connection with these words fubverfive "of their real meaning, believes a falfhood; fo his "faith cannot fave him. In the days of the apof"tles many affirmed along with them, that Jesus..

is the Chrift, who yet meant very differently "from them. The far greater part of Chriften"dom will affirm in like manner; yet we shall "not easily find many who, when they come to ex"plain themfelves, have the fame meaning with the "apoftles. Let us then lay afide all questions "about faith, or how a man believes; and let the "only question be, What does he believe? What "fenfe does he put on the apoftolic doctrine about "the way of falvation * ?"

Here we have a number of loofe affertions thrown together, with no other defign, fo far as I can perceive, but to perplex and darken the matter in debate. The true ftate of the queftion between Palæmon and his opponents is, Whether a mere general affent to the truth of the propofition afore-mentioned, or any other of a like nature contained in, the New Teftament, is all that is to be understood by juftifying and faving faith? or, Whether this does not alfo imply fuch a perfuafion of the truth relating to the divine perfon, miffion, and work of Chrift, as includes in it a refting our hopes of acceptance with God, and eternal falvation, upon him. alone? As the former is frequently affirmed by our author in oppofition to the latter, he ought to have brought his proofs in confirmation of it from the apoftolic writings, and not have amufed us with a queftion of a very different import, namely, What fense do we put on the apoftolic doctrine concerning the way of falvation? which leads us wholly off from the point in debate, and is fo general and vague, that all who profefs Chriftianity will readily frame fuch an answer to it as beft fuits their feveral hypotheses in religion, and that fyftem of principles each different fect has formed as moft. agreeable to the apoftolic doctrine.

The letter writer muft certainly have had a very mean opinion of the judgment and understanding of his readers, if he imagined they would be fo weak as to take thefe two questions, What does "he believe? What fenfe does he put on the apo"ftolic doctrine about the way of falvation? for questions precifely of the fame import; when it must be evident to every one that they are widely different; and that the laft is moft impertinently proposed by one who maintains, that the fimple know

L 5

knowledge or belief of the bare truth, or of the fimple facts recorded in the New Teftament, with. relation to the death and refurrection of Jefus, is all that is neceffary to juftification, or the fame with juftifying 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 neceflary to juftification? after. he has in the ftrongeft terms afferted that it is.

If a general affent to the fimple truth was really all that is neceffary to juftification, or all that in the New Testament is meant by justifying and faving faith, one would think it must neceffarily follow, that all with whom it is to be found are juftified, and will accordingly be faved, whatever mistakes they may labour under as to matters of lefs confequence. But this notion is too grofs to be admitted, and would have obliged Palamon 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. Befides, a conceffion of this kind would no way confift with thofe high and felf-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 for thefe invidious calumnies which they fo liberally, throw out against their opponents as perverters of the gofpel of Chrift, &c. Therefore Palamon thinks fit to tell us, that the faith of the fimple truth cannot fave any, uniefs they believe it in a certain fenfe. This he is pleased to call the fenfe of the apoftles; but, in fact, it is only the fenfe which he and his r-d father Mr. J. G. have thought fit to give of the apoftolic writings; a fenfe evidently contrary.

to2

to, and fubverfive of the true doctrine of the grace of God; as we have partly fhewn already, and may have occafion to fhew more fully afterwards.

1

But whatever might be Palamon's design in granting that a fimple belief of the truth, or of the facts recorded in the New, Teftament concerning the death and resurrection of Jesus, is not of itself fufficient to juftification, unless we believe them in the fenfe of the apoftles; we readily admit the conceffion, and doubt not but by the help of it we fhall be able to fhew the falfity and abfurdity of the ftrange 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 pofed to agree with him as frankly to acknowledge, that to believe that Jefus is the Chrift, or that he died and rofe again, in the fenfe of the apoftles, or as thofe 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 juftifying faith. When he tells us, that the whole New Teftament is writ to afcertain to us in what fenfe the apoftles understood these truths, he in effect appeals to their writings, as giving a genuine explication, and directing to a suitable improvement of them.

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