_Secondly, You make sinless perfection necessary after justification, in order to make us meet for glory._――――And who does not? Indeed men do not agree in the time. Some believe it is attained before death: some, in the article of death: some, in an after-state; in the _mystic_, or the _popish_ purgatory. But all writers, whom I have ever seen till now (the _Romish_ themselves not excepted) agree, that we must be “fully cleansed from all sin,” before we can enter into glory.
3. After what has already been allowed, I cannot think it needful, to dispute farther, on the head of justification.――――Rather suffer me to close this part of our debate, by transcribing what I assent to, from that clear recapitulation of your sentiments, which you have given in your 45th and 46th pages.
“First, Justification is the act of God, pardoning our sins, and receiving us again to his favour. This was free in him, because undeserved by us; undeserved, because we had transgressed his law, and could not, nor even can now, perfectly fulfill it.”
2. “We cannot therefore be justified by our works, because this would be, to be justified by some merit of our own. Much less can we be justified by an external shew of religion, or by any superstitious observances.”
3. “The life and death of our Lord is the sole meritorious cause of this mercy, which must be firmly believed and trusted in by us. Our faith therefore in him, though not more meritorious than any other of our actions, yet has a nearer relation to the promises of pardon through him, and is the mean and instrument whereby we embrace and receive them.”
4. “True faith must be lively and productive of good works, which are its proper fruits, the marks whereby it is known.”
* 5. “Works really good, are such as are commanded by God (springing from faith) done by the aid of his holy Spirit, with good designs, and to good ends. These may be considered as internal or external.”
* 6. “The inward ones, such as hope, trust, fear, and love of God and our neighbour, (which may be more properly termed _good dispositions_ and [are branches of] sanctification) must always be joined with faith, and consequently be _conditions present_ in justification――――though they are not the means or instruments of receiving it.”
* 7. “The outward”――――(which are more properly termed good works) “though there be no immediate opportunity of practising them, and therefore a sincere desire and resolution to perform them, be sufficient for the present; yet must follow after as soon as occasion offers, and will then be necessary conditions of preserving our justification.”
* 8. “There is a justification conveyed to us in our baptism, or properly, this state is then begun. But――――should we fall into sins――――we cannot regain it without true faith and repentance, which implies (as its fruits) a forsaking of our sins, and amendment of (our whole) life.”
* I have only one circumstance farther to add, namely, That I am not _newly_ convinced of these things. For this is the doctrine which I have continually taught for eight or nine years last past: only, I abstained from the word _condition_, perhaps more scrupulously than was needful.
4. With regard to the _consequences_ of my teaching this doctrine, I desire any who will not account it lost labour, to consult with his own eyes, seriously and in the fear of God, the 3d and 4th _journals_. And if he pleases, he may farther read over and compare, from the 25th to the 29th page of my answer, with your reply, from the 101st (inclusive) to the 104th page.
Among the consequences you reckoned (in your _Remarks_) besides _introducing predestination, confusion, presumption, and despair, many very shocking instances of all which_ (your words are) _you give us among your followers_――――pages 52, 55――――I answered, “You should have specified a few of those instances; at least the pages where they occur.” (Suppose, only three of each sort, out of any, or all the four _journals_) “Till this is done, I can look upon this assertion as no other than a flourish of your pen.”
Upon this you exclaim, (_page 111._) _I must beg the reader to observe your method of citing my words. Many instances of omissions he has had already. But here is such a one, as I believe few controversies can parallel.――――Would not any one imagine from the view of these words [Predestination, confusion, presumption, and despair] that they occurred all together in page 52, of my_ remarks, _and that I observed nothing farther concerning this point? Could it be thought, that any thing intervened between the page referred to, and the last sentence? And yet so it is, that near three pages intervene!_――――Ha! do _near three pages intervene_! Prodigious indeed!――――_And this is called an answer!_――――So it is, for want of a better.