A

LL the works and ways of God have fomething in them mysterious, above the comprehenfion of any finite understanding. As this is the cafe with his works of creation and providence, there is no reason to expect it should be otherwise in the aftonishing method of the redemption of the world by Jefus Chrift. From this their mysterious nature, or rather from the imperfect measure and degree in which they are revealed to us, they are admirably fitted for the trial of our ingenuity, humility and fubjection. They are all of them, when seriously and impartially enquired into, holy, juft and good; but at the fame time, not beyond the cavils and objections of men of prejudiced, perverse and corrupt minds.

The apostle Paul, in his epistle to the Romans, among whom he had never been in perfon, at great length establishes the fundamental doctrine of the gospel, that finners are justified by the free grace of God, through the imputed righteousness of a Redeemer. To this doctrine men do by nature make the strongest oppofition, and are, with the utmost difficulty, brought to receive and apply it. We may well fay of it in particular, what the fame apoftle fays of the truths of God in general, that "the natural "man doth not receive them."* It is therefore highly neceflary to prevent or remove, as far as poffible, the objections that may be brought against it by the art or ma

lice of Satan, who will, no doubt, bend the chief force of all his engines againft this truth, knowing that the cordial reception of it is a fure and effectual, and indeed the only fure and effectual means, of deftroying his power and influence in the heart. Accordingly we find the apoftle, in the fixth chapter of the above-named epifile, and first verfe, fuppofes an objection made againft this doctrine in the following terms; "What fhall we fay then? fhall we continue in fin, that grace may abound?" To which he anfwers, by rejecting the confequence with the utmost abhorrence, and in the firongeft manner affirming it to be without any foundation.

From the introduction of this objection by the apofile, we may either infer, that there were, even in these early days, fome who branded the doctrine of redemption by the free grace of God with this odious confequence; or that he by the inspiration of the Almighty, did foresee that there fhould arife, in fome future periods of the Chriftian church, adverfaries who would attempt to load it with this imputation: or that the doctrine is indeed liable, on a fuperficial view, to be abused to this unhappy purpofe, by the deceitful hearts of men who are wedded to their lufts. It is probable that all the three obfervations are juft; and the two laft render it a peculiarly proper fubject for our attention and confideration at this time, and in this age.

It is well known that there are many enemies of this doctrine, of different characters and of different principles, who all agree in affaulting it with this objectionthat it weakens the obligations to holiness of life, by making our juftification before God depend entirely upon the righteousness and merit of another. And fo far, I think, we must join with the adverfaries of this doctrine, as to lay it down for a principle-that whatever belief or perfuafion, by its native and genuine tendency, weakens the obligations to practice, must be falfe. And I will alfo affert, in oppofition to fome modern infidels (though fome may think that my cause might avail itself of the contrary opinion) that a man's inward principle, or the perfuafion of his mind, hath a neceffary and unavoidable influence

upon his practice.* So that, if I am not able to fhew that juftification through the imputed righteoufnefs of Chrift, is fo far from weakening the obligations to holiness, that, on the contrary, the belief and reception of it, as its neceflary confequence, muft make men greater lovers of purity and holiness and fill them with a greater horror of fin than any other perfuafion on the fame fubject, I am content to give up the cause.

I hope we may be indulged a candid hearing on this fubject, as experience does not feem to be unfavorable to the doctrine I am effaying to defend. If it appeared in fact that its friends upon a fair and juft comparison, were more loose in their practice than their adversaries of any of the oppofite opinions, it would be a ftrong prejudice against it; or rather, if this were always the cafe, it would be an unquestionable evidence of its falfehood. But doth not the contrary appear on the very face of the world? Are not the perfons who profefs to deny their own righteousness, and hope for juftification through Chrift, ordinarily the most tender and fearful of finning themselves, and the most faithful and diligent in promoting the reformation of others? And do not all carelefs, profane and fenfual livers, almost to a man, profess themselves enemies to this doctrine? I could almoft appeal to any one who hath the least experience of, or commerce with the world, whether he would expect to find, upon a ftrict fearch and enquiry, the worship of God more conftantly attended, the name of God more regularly called upon in families, children and fervants more carefully inftructed and more dutifully governed, a greater freedom from levity, pro

That is to fay, fo far as it can be applied to practice, and fo far as it is real or prevalent above its oppofite; for there are many truths of a religious nature which men think they believe fometimes, but which yet their corrupt paffions often make them doubt of; and thefe doubts are nine parts in ten of their lives obverfant to their minds, as a vindication of their licentious practice: in fome fenfe, fuch may be faid to act in contradiction to their principles; but they are principles either not really believed, or, which is the fame thing, not habitually recollected; and none can expect that men will act upon a principle, though once ever fo firmly believed, if it be forgotten, or at the time of action entirely out of view.

fanity, unchastity, pride, malice, or infincerity of converfation, amongst the friends or enemies of this doctrine? So true is this, that they commonly have the appellation of the stricter sort given them, by which is certainly underftood, at leaft an apparent ftri&tnels of life and manners.*

As therefore experience doth not hinder, or rather as it warrants us to affirm, that those who expect juftification by free grace are, of all others, the most holy in their lives; I propofe to fhew, that it must be fo, and that this is but the native fruit, and neceflary confequence of their principles. What has induced me to this attempt, is not only the calumnies of enemies, but the weakness or treachery of profeffed friends. These laft injure the truth often, in two different ways. Some speak in fuch a manner as to confirm and harden enemies in their oppofition to it : they use fuch rash and uncautious expreffions, as do indeed juftify the objection which the apoftle rejects with fo great abhorrence; and in the heat of their zeal against the felf-righteous legalift, feem to ftate themselves as enemies, in every refpect, to the law of God, which is holy, juft and good. Others, on the contrary, defend it in fuch a manner, as to deftroy the doctrine itself, and give fuch interpretations of the word of God, as, if they were juft, and known to be fo, the objection would never have been made, because there would not have been fo much as an occafion given to it.f

I am not ignorant, that it is the ufual refuge of those who are evidently diffolute in their own lives, to alledge, that there is indeed an appearance of this, but that it is no more than appearance, being all hypocrify. It would be going out of the way to enter upon a large refutation of this flander. Therefore acknowledging, that, no doubt, whatever number of hypocrites there are in the world, and there are too many, they muft herd amongft, or attach themselves to the fociety of, the beft part of it; I obferve, that the general charge of hypocrify is only thrown out at a venture, is a judging of the heart; and by the very fuppofition, contrary to appearances, juftified, for the most part, by a steady perfeverance. Whereas, ufually the whole merit of those who bring the accufation, is that of being uniformly wicked, and not fo much as profeffing what it was their indifpenfable duty both to have profeffed and practited.

I have often thought, that there cannot be a ftronger argument, that the explication commonly given by Calvinifts, of the pallages of

But of all the pretended Chriftians, one fort are worthy of the higheft contempt, who, acknowledging the truth. of this doctrine, call it dangerous, and are backward to teach or publish it, left it fhould be abused. Would fuch weak, half-thinking mortals, be wifer than God? Hath he published it, and fhall we throw a veil over it, to remedy the rafhnefs of his proceeding? Do the Scriptures reveal, and are we backward to " teftify the gofpel of the grace of God?" All the works of God are capable of being abufed; that this may be fo likewife the apoftle fuppofes. It is, however, not the lefs ufeful or important; only let us endeavor to vindicate it from the falfe charge of favoring or encouraging licentioufnefs of life. This I would willingly do in fuch a manner, as to affert while I defend it; to maintain the doctrine itself, while I fhew not only its innocence, but its usefulness in prac

tice.

The words of the infpired apoftle are, " God forbid, "how fhall we that are dead to fin, live any longer there"in? In which he affirms, that the grace of God abounding in the gospel, is fo far from being an encouragement to fin, that it deftroys the power of fin, and removes the inclination to it, fo far as it prevails. The language is very ftrong, "We that are dead to fin."-It feems to put us in mind of the total effectual breach of relation between a dead man, and the objects with which he was formerly connected in life: they are nothing to him, nor he to them; he neither loves them, needs them, nor uses them. So in proportion as the grace of God offered through Chrift in the gofpel is received and applied, fin is mortified in the heart; thus fays the apoftle elsewhere, " God "forbid that I fhould glory, fave in the crofs of our Lord Jefus Chrift, by which the world is crucified' unto me,

fcripture on this fubject, is juft, than the apoftle's fuppofition of an objection of this nature arifing from it. For if the explication of fome others, were fuppofed to be the obvious meaning of the text, and were fubftituted in its room, as all just definitions may be without inconvenience, the apostle's words, "What fhall we fay then? fhall we con"tinue in fin that grace may abound?" would be quite unnatural and abfurd.