That believers are in this life justified in a peculiar sense, is further taught in 1 Cor. vi. 11, "And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our God."I presume it will be granted, that pardon or forgiveness is an essential part of justification, and that when a man is forgiven by God, he is justified by God. But that believers are forgiven in this life, is evident from the following texts, Mat. ix. 2, "Son, thy sins be forgiven thee." See also, Mark ii. 5, and Luke v. 20-Col. ii. 13, 66 And you being dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having for-given you all trespasses." 1 John ii. 12, “I write`unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you, for his name's sake."

But why need I produce proofs of what Dr. C. grants, though it seems in his comment on the 9th verse, he had forgotten it? In his comment on the 1st verse, &c. he speaks of "the justified by faith, as glorying in hope of the glory of God-and in their sufferings-because they knew that tribulation worketh patience, and patience experience, and experience hope." The Doctor, as the apostle did before him, evidently considers these things as taking place in this life. Indeed the contrary cannot be pretended without the grossest absurdity. He also considers these views and affections as peculiar to the justified by faith. Therefore some men are completely justified by faith in this life: at least so completely, as to render the 9th verse properly applicable to them. Therefore his argument from vʊv, now, that the justification spoken of in the 9th verse, is not peculiar to believers, proves nothing.

Beside, Dr. C. could not, without the most glaring absurdity and inconsistency, understand this 9th verse

of all mankind: because the persons here referred to, shall be saved from wrath. But according to the Doctor some men will not be saved from wrath, they will suffer all that wrath to which they are liable on the footing of strict justice they will suffer according their sins, according to their crimes, and their deserts, and so that the whole threatened penalty will be executed on them.

(4) Doctor C. argues, that because it is said in verse 10th, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God; by the we here, we must understand, not believers only, but all mankind: or because, as the Doctor paraphrases the words, while they were enemies, they were reconciled; therefore this reconciliation cannot mean the cordial reconciliation of true believers.* The force of this argument wholly depends on this supposition, that the persons here intended, were reconciled, and yet after the reconciliation was effected, they still remained enemies. But what necessity of this gloss of the text? Why may it not mean this merely, that when the persons here intended were going on in their enmity, they were arrested by the grace of God, reclaimed from their enmity, and reconciled to God? There appears to be nothing absurd or unusual in this expression understood in this sense. If it should be said, When a subject was waging war against his sovereign, and was in actual battle with the troops of his sovereign, he was reconciled to him; the expression would not naturally imply, and no man would understand it to mean, that notwithstanding the reconciliation, he still continued a fixed and malicious enemy to his sovereign. No man would understand the expression in any other sense than this, that in the midst of the war and battle, he was struck with conviction of his wickedness, and became cordially reconciled to his sovereign.

* Page 38.

If the Doctor depended on the original words expo •vies xxŢnaλxynuev, to make out that the reconciliation here intended took place, while the persons spoken of remained enemies; he might as conclusively have argued, that the person mentioned in John ix. 25, (lupaos wv Bλ) had his sight restored to him, while he remained perfectly blind; and that Saul went to Damascus, with the expectation of bringing certain persons to Jerusalem, who at the same time should still remain at Damascus, (ağar Tovs EXEITE ovlas) Acts xxii. 5.

At length we come to the Doctor's exposition of the 11th verse, to which his criticism, on all the preceding verses refers. He tells us, The meaning plainly and briefly is, "We believers glory in God of our interest, and relation to him, as our covenant God, through Jesus Christ, by whom we were so changed in our state, while enemies-in common with the rest of mankind, as to be capable of-final justification upon the foot of faith." On this it may be remarked, That if by "interest in and covenant relation to God," Dr. C. meant any thing different from that state of reconciliation, which is obtained by Christ, and which is mentioned in the latter part of this verse, it does not appear, that the text gives him any warrant to insert that interest, &c. in his comment, as a ground of rejoicing or glorying. I appeal to the reader whether the most natural sense of the text be not this, We believers glory in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, as having by Christ received reconciliation; or for this reason, that of God's rich grace through Christ, we have obtained reconciliation with God. Otherwise, why is the circumstance of our receiving the reconciliation by Christ mentioned in this connexion with our glorying in God? Beside, to glory in God as our covenant God, and to glory in him on account of our reconciliation with him, is one and the same thing.

The glorying of which the apostle speaks, is through Christ; and this implies, that it is on account of some benefit or blessing received through Christ: and what this blessing is, which the apostle had in view, and which he considered as the ground of glorying to believers, he immediately explains in these words, by whom we have received the reconciliation, that reconciliation of which he had been speaking in the 10th verse. But if the reconciliation, which the apostle makes, the great ground of rejoicing or glorying to believers, be, as Dr. C. holds, common to believers and unbelievers; then the great ground of glorying to believers is not any blessing peculiar to believers; but something common to all mankind; and therefore unbelievers have just the same reason to glory in that blessing as believers; which is no more credible than the doctrine of universal salvation, and wants as much proof as that doctrine; and therefore cannot be admitted as any evidence of the truth of that doctrine.

I beg the reader's patience, while I make a few other remarks on Dr. C's construction of the passage from Rom. iv. 25, to chap. v. 12; and I wish the reader to keep before him the passage itself, while he follows me in these remarks.

This whole passage is expressed in the first person, and is manifestly one continued discourse. Yet Dr. C. was of the opinion, that in this short passage of only twelve verses, the persons, or the we, us and our, which occur in almost every sentence, are shifted no less than four times. In the last verse of chap. iv. it was his opinion, that all men are intended: that from the first to the sixth verse of chapter v. only believers are intended: that from the 6th to the 11th verse all men are intended: that in the former part of the 11th verse believers only are intended; that in the latter part of the

11th verse all men are again intended. I beg leave to set down this whole passage, according to the Doctor's explanation, together with the text itself:-Thus