appears, that the whole Antinomian gulph still remains fixed between us. Read over the preceding quotations; weigh the clauses which I have put in Italics, compare them with what Mr. Berridge says in his christian world unmasked p. 26, of "an absolute impossibility of being justified in any manner by our works," namely before God; and you will see, that although pious Calvinists allow, we are justified by works before men and angels, yet they deny our being ever justified by works before God, in whose sight they suppose we are for ever "justified by Christ alone," i. e. only by Christ's good works and sufferings absolutely imputed to us, from the very first moment in which we' make a single act of true faith, if not from all eternity. Thus works are still entirely excluded from having any hand either in our intermediate or final justification before God,, and thus they are still represented as totally needless to our eternal salvation. Now, in direct opposition to the above mentioned distinction, we Anti-Calvinists believe, that adult persons cannot be saved, without being justified by faith as sinners, according to the light of their dispensation; and by works us believers, according to the time and opportunities they have of working: We assert, that the works of faith are not less necessary to our justification before God as believers; than faith itself is necessary to our justification before him as sinners :-And we maintain that when faith does not produce good works [much more when it produces the worst works, such as adultery, hypocrisy, treachery, murder, &c.] it dies and justifies no more; seeing it is a living and not a dead faith, that justifies us as sinners; even as they are living, and not dead works, that justify us as believers. I have already exposed the absurdity of the doctrine, that works are necessary to our final justification before men or angels, but not before God; However as this distinction is one of the grand subterfuges of the decent antinomians, and one of the pleas by which the hearts of the simple are most easily deceived into solifidianism, to the many arguments that I have already produced upon this head, in the Sixth Letter of the Fourth Check, I beg leave to add those which follow: 1. The way of making up the antinomian gap by saying, that works are necessary to our intermediate and final justification before men and angels, but not before God, is as bad as the gap itself.-If God is for me, says judicious Mr. Fulsome, who can be against me? If God has for ever justified me "only by Christ," and if works have absolutely no place in my justification before him, what care I for men and angels? Should they justify when God condemns, what would their absolution avail? And if they condemn when God justifies, what signifies their condemna. tion? All creatures are fallible. The myriads of men and angels are as nothing before God. He is all in all. Thus Mr. Fulsome, by a most judicious way of arguing, keeps the field of licentiousness, where the solifidian ministers have inadvertently brought him, and whence he is too wise to depart upon their brandishing before him the broken reed of an absurd distinction. 2. Our justification by works will principally, and in some cases entirely turn upon the works of the heart, which are unknown to all but God. Again, were men and angels in all cases to pass a decisive sentence upon us according to our words, they might judge as severely as Mr. Hill judges Mr. Wesley; they might brand us for forgery upon the most frivolous appearances; at least they might condemn us as rashly as Job's friends condemned him. Once more: were our fellow creatures to condemn us decisively by our works, they would often do it as unjustly as the disciples condemned the blessed woman, who poured a box of very precious ointment on our Lord's head. They had indignation, and blamed as uncharitable waste, what our Lord was pleased to call a good work wrought upon him.—a good work which shall be told for a memorial of her, as long as the christian gospel is preached. To this may be added the mistakes of the apostles, who, even after they had received the Holy Ghost, condemned Saul of Tarsus. by his former, when they should have absolved him by his latter works. And even now how few believers would justify Phineas for running Zimri and Cosbi through the body, or Peter for striking Ananias and Sapphira dead, without giving them time to say once, Lord, have mercy upon us! Nay, how many would condemn them as rash. men, if not as cruel murderers? In some cases therefore, none can possibly justify or condemn believers by their works, but he who is perfectly acquainted with all the. outward circumstances of their actions, and with all the secret springs whence they flow. 3. The Scriptures know nothing of the distinction which I explode. When St. Paul denies that Abraham was justified by works it is only when he treats of the justification of a sinner, and speaks of the works of unbelief. When Christ says, By thy words thou shalt be justified he makes no mention of angels. To suppose that they shall be able to justify a world of men by their words is to suppose, that they have heard, and do remember all the words of all mankind, which is supposing them to be Gods. Nay, far from being judged by angels, St. Paul says, that we shall judge them; not indeed as proper judges, but as Christ's assessors and mystical members: For our Lord, in his description of the great day, imforms us, that he, and no men or angels, will justify the sheep and in GoD, and it was imputed to him for righcondemn the goats, by their works. 4. St. Paul discountenances the evasive distinction which I oppose, when he says, "Thinkest thou, O man, who doest such things, that thou shalt escape the righteous judgment of GOD, who will render eternal life to them that by patient continuance in well-doing, seek for glory, &c. when he shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ." For reason dictates that neither men nor angels, but the Searcher of hearts alone, will be able to justify or condemn us by secrets, unknown possibly to all but himself. teousuess," i. e. he was justified before God; so that the same Lord, who justified him as a sinner by faith in the day of his conversion, justified him also as a believer by works in the day of his trial. 7. But this is not all: Turning to Gen. xxii. the chapter which St. James undoubtedly in view, when he insisted upon Abraham's justification by works; I find the best of arguments, matter of fact. And it came to pass that God did tempt: i. e. try Abraham. The patriarch acquitted himself like a sound believer in the hard trial, he obediently offered up his favourite son. Here St. James addresses a solifidian, and bluntly says, "Wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead," i. e. that when faith gives over working by obedient love, it sickens, dies, and commences a dead faith? "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered up Isaac upon the altar?" If Mr. Hill answers: Yes, he was justified by works before men and angels but not before God: I reply: Impossible! for neither men or angels put him to the trial, to bring out what was in his heart. God tried him, that he might justly punish, or wisely reward him; therefore God justified him. If a judge after trying a man on a particular occasion, acquits him upon his good behaviour, in order to proceed to the reward of him, is it not absurd to say, that the man is acquitted before the court, but not before the judge; especially if there is neither court nor jury present, but only the judge? Was not this the case at Abraham's trial? Do we hear of any angel being 'present but 5. If you say, Most men shall have been condemned or justified long before the day of judgment; therefore the solemn pomp of that day will be appointed merely for the sake of a justification by men and angels: I exclaim against the unreasonablenes of supposing that the great and terrible day of GOD, with an eye to which the world of rationals was created, is to be only the day of men and angels: and I reply:-Although I grant, that judgment certainly finds us where death leaves us; final justification and condemnation being chiefly a solemn seal set, if I may so speak, upon the forehead of those whose consciences are already justified or condemned, according to the last turn of their trial upon earth: Yet it appears both from Scripture and reason, that mankind cannot properly be judged before the great day: Departed spirits are not men! and dead men cannot be tried till the resurrection of the dead takes place, that departed spirits, and raised bodies may form men again by their re-union. Therefore, in the very nature of things, God, the Angel Jehovah? And had not cannot judge mankind before the great day; and to suppose that the Father has appointed such a day, that we may be finally justified by our works before men and angels, and not before him, is to suppose that he has committed the chief judgment to the parties that be judged, i. e. to men and angels, but not to Jesus Christ. 6. But if I mistake not, St. James puts the matter out of all dispute, where he says: "You see then, that by works a man is justified and not by faith only." chap. ii. 24. This shews that a man is justified by works before the same judge, by whom he is justified by faith and here is the proof: No body was ever justified by faith before men and angels, because faith is an inward act of the soul, which none but the tryer of the reins can be a judge of. Therefore, as the justifier by faith alluded to in the latter part of the verse, is undoubtedly God alone; it is contrary to all the rules of criticism to suppose, that the justifier by works, alluded to in the very same sentence, is men and angels. Nay in the preceding verse God is expressly mentioned, and not men or angels: "Abraham believed Abraham left his two servants with the Ass at the foot of the mount? Is it reasonable then to suppose, that Abraham was justified before them by a work, which as yet they have not heard of; for, says St. James, When, (which implies as soon as,) he had offered Isaac, he was justified by works? If you say, that he was justified before Isaac ; I urge the absurdity of supposing, that God made so much ado about the trial of Abraham before the lad; and I demand proof that God had appointed the youth to be the justifier of his aged parent. 8. But let the sacred historian decide the question. And the Lord called to Abraham out of heaven, and said, Lay not thy hand upon the lad, for now I know, [declaratively] that thou fearest God, (i, e. believest in God:) Now I can pray and reward thee with wisdom and equity; seeing that thou hast not withheld thy son, thy only son from me. Upon Calvinistic principles, did not God speak improperly? Should not he have said, Now angels and men, before whom thou hast offered Isaac, do know that thou fearest me But if God had spoken thus, would he hav spoken consistently with either his veracity or his wisdom? Is it not far more reasonable to suppose, that although God as omniscient, with a glance of his eye tries the hearts, searches the reins, and foresees all future contingencies, yet, as a judge, and a wise dispenser of punishments and rewards, he condemns no unbelievers, and justifies no believers, in St. James's sense, but by the evidence of the' tempers, words and actions, which ас tually spring from their unbelief, or their faith? 9. Was it not from the same motive, that God tried Job in the land of Uz, chap. i 12. Israel in the wilderness, Deut. viii. 1, compared with Josh. xxii. 2, and king Hezekiah in Jerusalem, 2 Chron. xxxii. 31? God (says the historian) left him (to the temptation) that he (God) might know (declaratively) all that was in his heart. It is true, Mr. Hill supposes, in the Second Edition of his Five Letters, that the words He might know, refer to Hezekiah, but Canne, more judiciously refers to Gen. xxii. 1, where God tried Abraham, not that Abraham might know, but that He himself might declaratively know what was in Abraham's heart. If the word that HE might know, did refer to Hezekiah, should not the affix (1) he, or him, have been added to y, thus, y, as it is to put to the two preceeding verbs, he left HIM, ?to try HIM לנסותו 10. Our Lord himself decides the question where he says to his believing disciples, "Whosoever shall confess me before men him will I also confess before my Father who is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father who is in heaven.". It was undoubtedly an attention to this Scripture, that made Dr. Owen say: "Hereby [by personal obedience] that faith whereby we are justified [as sinners,] is evidenced, proved, manifested in the sight of GOD and man.' And yet, astonishing! this passage which indirectly gives up the only real difference there is, between Mr. Hill's justification by Works and our's; this passage, which cuts him off from the only way he has of making his escape, (except that by which his brother tried to make his own, See Fourth Check) this very passage which makes so much for my sentiment, is one of those concerning which he says, Finishing Stroke p. "Words prudently expunged by Mr. Fletcher," when they are only words, which for brevity's sake I very imprudently left out, since they cut down solifidianism, even with Dr. Owen's sword. 14. To conclude: Attentive reader, peruse James ii. where the justification of believers by works before God is so strongly insisted upon: Observe what is said there of the law of liberty; of believers being judged by that law; of the judgment without mercy, that shall be shewn to fallen merciless believers according to that law :-Consider that this doctrine exactly coincides with the sermon upon the mount, and the epistle to the Hebrews-that it perfectly tallies with Ezek. xviii. xxxiii. Matt. xii. xxv. Rom. ii. Gal. vi. &c. and that it is delivered to brethren, yea, to the beloved brethren of St. James, to whom he could say, "Out of his own will the Father of Lights begat us with the word of truth:"-Take notice, that the charge indirectly brought against them, is, that they had not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons; and that they deceived their ownselves, by not being as careful doers as they were diligent hearers of the word: —Then look round upon some of our most famous believers: see how foaming, how roaring, how terrible are the billows of their partiality. Read "An address from candid protestants to the Rev. Mr. Fletcher :" read the "Finishing Stroke;" read "More work for Mr. Wesley" read the Checks to Antinomianism; and say if there is not as great need to insist upon a believer's justification by words and works, as there was in the days of our Lord and St. James; and if it is not high time to say to modern believers, “My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons.-So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty: for he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy :-For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again, [by him, that] shall render to every one according to what he has done in the body, whether it be good or bad."-But, "candid Protestants" have an answer ready in their "ADDRESS :"This is, the "popish doctrine of justification by works," and "Arminian Methodism turned out rank Popery at last.” -This is a mingle mangle of "the most high and mighty, self-righteous, self-potent, selfimportant, self-sanctifying, self justifying, and self-exalting MEDLEY Minister*."-The misfortune is, that amidst these witticisms of "the Protestants," (for it seems the Calvinists engross that name to themselves) we "rank Papists," still look out for arguments; and when we find none, or only such are as worse than none, we still say Logica Genevensis! and remain confirmed in our "dreadful heresy," or rather, in our Lord's anti-calvinistic doctrine, By thy words thou shalt be JUSTIFIED, and by thy words thou shalt be CONDEMNED. • See the above mentioned "Address from Candid Protestants." END OF THE FIRST PART OF THE FIFTH CHECK. LOGICA GENEVENSIS CONTINUED: OR THE SECOND PART OF THE FIFTH CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM. Containing a defence of "Jack o' Lanthorn," and "the Paper-Kite," i. e. Sincere Obedience;-of the "Cobweb," i. e. The evangelical law of liberty;-and of the "val-] iant Sergeant IF," i. e. The conditionality of Perseverance, attacked by the Rev. Mr. Berridge, M. A. Vicar of Everton, and late fellow of Clare-hall, Cambridge, in his book called "The Christian World unmasked." INTRODUCTION. HAVING animadverted upon Mr. Hill's Fi nishing Stroke, I proceed to ward off the first blow, which the Rev. Mr. Berridge has given to practical religion. But before I mention his mistakes, I must do justice to his person. It is by no means my design to represent him as a divine, who either leads a loose life, or intends to hurt the Redeemer's interest. His conduct as a Christian is exemplary; his labours as a minister are great: and I am persuaded that the wrong touches which he gives to the ark of godliness, are not only undesigned, but intended to do God ser vice. There are so many things commendable in the pious vicar of Everton, and so much truth in his Christian World unmasked, that I find it a hardship to expose the unguarded parts of that performance. But the cause of this hardship is the ground of my apology. Mr. Berridge is a good, an excellent man, therefore the Antinomian errors, which go abroad into the world with his letters of recommen. dation, speak in his evangelical strain, and are armed with the poignancy of his wit, cannot be too soon pointed out, and too carefully guarded against. I flatter myself that this consideration will procure me his pardon, for taking the liberty of dispatching his "valiant Sergeant," with some doses of rational and scriptural antidotes for those, who have drunk into the pleasing mistakes of his book, and want his piety to hinder them from carrying speculative into practical Antinomianism. SECT. I. Mr. Berridge advances the capital error of the Antinomians, when he says, that "Faith must utterly exclude all justification by works:" and when he represents "The Passport of Obedience" as a Paperkite. ONE of my opponents has justly observed, that "the principal cause of controversy among us," is the doctrine of our justification by the works of faith in the day of judgment. At this rampart of practical godliness Mr. Berridge levels such propositions as these in his Christian world unmasked, second Edit. P. 170. 171. FINAL justification by faith is the CAPITAL doctrine of the gospel.-Faith being the term of salvation, &c. must UTTERLY exclude ALL justification by works.-And p. 26, we read of an ABSOLUTE impossibility of being justified IN ANY MANNER by our works. If these positions are true, say, Reader, if St. James, St. Paul, and Jesus Christ, did not advance great untruths when they said, "By works a man is justified and not by faith only," Jam. ii. 24. "For not the hearers of the law (of Christ) are just before God but the doers shall be justified, &c. in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ," Rom. ii, 13, 16. (adds our Lord when speaking of the day of judgment) by thy words thou shalt be justified," &c. Matt. xii. 37. Christian reader, say who is mistaken? Christ and his apostles, or the late fellow of Clare-hall. "For Mr. Berridge goes farther still. Without ceremony he shuts the gates of heaven against every man who seeks to be justified by works, according to our Lord's and St. James's doctrine. For when he has assured us, p. 171, that faith must UTTERLY exclude ALL justification by works, he immediately adds, " And the man, who seeks to be justified by his passport of obedience, will find no passage through the city gates." Might not our author have unmasked. Calvinism a little more, and told the christian world, that the man who minds what Christ says shall be turned into hell? See the boldness of Solifidianism!* In our Lord's days believers were to keep their mouths as with a bridle, and to abstain from every idle word, lest in the day of judgment they should not be justified. In St. John's time they were todo Christ's command. ments, that they might enter through the gates into the city," Rev. xxii. 14; but in our days a Gospel-minister assures us, p. 171. that the believer, who, according to our Lord's doctrine seeks to be "justified by his passport of obedience, will find No passage through the city gates. He may talk of the tree of life, and soar up with his PAPER-KITE to the gates of paradise, but will find no entrance."-1 grant it, if an Antinomian Pope has St. Peter's key; but so long as Christ has the key of David; so long as he opens, and no solifidian shuts; the dutiful servant, instead of being sent flying to hell after "the paper kite" of obedience, will, through his Lord's merits, be honourably admitted into heaven by the passport of good works, which he has about him. For though the remembrance of his sins, and the sight of his Saviour, will make him ashamed to produce it; yet he had rather die ten thousand deaths, than be found with out it. The celestial Porter, after having kindly opened it for him, will read it before an innumerable company of angels, and say "Enter into the joy of thy Lord, for I was hungry, and thou gavest me meat," &c. Matt. XXV. 35. &c. fessions of faith,) is nothing, but the keep ing of the commandments of God, Yet, though I have ALL FAITH and no charity I am nothing, Isa. xxvi. 2. 1. Cor. vii. 19, xiii, 2. If I am at the city-gates when Mr. Berridge will exclaim against me, the "passport of obedience," I think I shall venture t ocheck his imprudence by the following questions. Can there be a medium between not having a passport of obedience, and having one of disobedience? Must a man, to the honour of free grace, take a passport of refractoriness along with him? Must he bring a certificate of adultery and murder to be welcomed into the New Jerusalem? I am persuaded that with the utmost abhorrence, Mr. Berridge answers No! But his great Diana speaks louder than he, and says before all the world: "There is no need that he should have a testimony of adultery and murder, but he may if he pleases; nay, if he is so inclined, he may get a diploma of treachery and incest: it will never invalidate his title to glory; for if David and the incestuous Corinthian had saving faith, inamissable eternal life, and finished salvation, when they committed their crimes; and if Faith or BELIEVING (as Mr. Berridge affirms, p. 168.) is the TOTAL term of ALL salvation," why might not every christian, if he is so minded, murder his neighbour, worship idols, and gratify even incestuous lusts as well as primitive backsliders, without risking his finished salvation? Upon this antinomian axiom advanced by Mr. Berridge, "Believing is the TOTAL term of ALL salvation," I lay my engine, a grain of reason, and ask every unprejudiced person, who is able to conclude that two and two make four, whether we may not, without any magical power, heave morality out of the world, or Calvinism out of the Church? If Mr. Berridge pleads, that when he says, p. 168, "Believing is the TOTAL term of ALL salvation," he means a faith" including and producing all obedience:" I reply, Then he gives up solifidianism; he means the very faith which I contend for in the Checks; and, pressing him with his own definition of faith; I ask, how can a "faith including all obedience,” include murder as in the case of David; idolatry, as in the case of Solomon ; lying, cursing, and denying Christ, as in the case of Peter; and even incest, as in the case of an apostate Corinthian? Are murder, idolatry, cursing, and incest, "all obedience? -If Mr. Berridge replies, No: Then David, Solomon, &c, lost the justifying faith of St. Paul, when they lost the justifying works of St. James; and so Mr. Berridge gives up the point together with Calvinism-If he says Yes. He not only gives up St. James's justification, but quite unmasks Antinomianism; and the rational world, who |