"and I unto the world."* This, which is indeed the language of the Scripture throughout, is not merely denying the accufation, but establishing the contrary truth, the influence of this doctrine upon purity of heart and life, which we find the apofile also afferting in the middle of his reafoning upon the point, "Do we then make void "the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we eftablish "the law."+

In the profecution of this fubject, it will be necessary, firft, in a few words, to ftate that doctrine against which the objection is made. It may be delivered in Scripturelanguage thus, "That all have finned, and come fhort of "the glory of God.-That every mouth must be stopped, "and all the world become guilty before God.-There"fore by the deeds of the law, there fhall be no flesh justi"fied in his fight. But we are juftified freely by his "grace, through the redemption that is in Chrift Jefus :"Whom God has fet forth as a propitiation, through faith "in his blood, to declare his righteoufnefs, for the remif "fion of fins that are paft, through the forbearance of God. "Where is boafting then? It is excluded. By what "law? of works? Nay, but by the law of faith. There"fore we conclude, that a man is juftified by faith with" out the deeds of the law.-Moreover, the law entered, "that the offence might abound; but where fin abounded, "grace did much more abound; that as fin hath reigned "unto death, even fo might grace reign through righteouf. "nefs unto eternal life, by Jefus Chrift our Lord."

The doctrine afferted in the above and other paffages of fcripture may be thus paraphrafed: that every intelligent creature is under an unchangeable and unalienable obligation, perfectly to obey the whole law of God: that all men proceeding from Adam by ordinary generation, are the children of polluted parents, alienated in heart from God, tranfgreffors of his holy law, inexcufable in this tranfgreffion, and therefore expofed to the dreadful confequences of his displeasure; that it was not agreeable to the dictates of his wifdom, holiness and juftice, to forgive

* Gal. vi. 14. + Rom. iii. 31.

their fins without an atonement or fatisfaction: and therefore he raifed up for them a Saviour, Jefus Chrift, who, as the fecond Adam, perfectly fulfilled the whole law, and offered himself up a facrifice upon the crofs in their flead: that this his righteoufness is imputed to them, as the fole foundation of their juftification in the fight of a holy God, and their reception into his favor that the means of their being interested in this falvation, is a deep humiliation of mind, confeffion of guilt and wretchednefs, denial of themfelves, and acceptance of pardon and peace through Chrift Jefus, which they neither have contributed to the procu ring, nor can contribute to the continuance of, by their own merit; but expect the renovation of their natures, to be inclined and enabled to keep the commandments of God as the work of the Spirit, and a part of the purchase of their Redeemer.*

This fhort account of the doctrine of the imputation of Chrift's righteoufnefs will be further illuftrated and explained in the progrefs of this difcourfe, intended to fhew, that in those who do cordially embrace it, the obligations to holiness are not weakened, but ftrengthened and confirmed. For this purpose be pleased to attend to the following observations; in all of which I defire it may be remembered, even where not exprefsly mentioned, an oppofition is intended between the principles and views of a believer in Chrift, who refts his hope on his imputed righteoufnefs, and thofe who act on any contrary principle.

* The intelligent reader will probably perceive, that I have expreffed the above doctrine in fuch general terms, as not diftinctly to take a part in the differences that are to be found among fome authors, as to the way of explaining it, and particularly as to the nature of faith. The reafon of my doing fo is, that I would willingly rather reconcile, than widen thefe differences; and because it is my firm perfuafion, that however fome think it jufteft, or wifeft, or fafeft, to express themselves one way, and fome another, yet all who have a deep and real conviction, that they are by nature in a loft ftate, and under the wrath of God, and that there is no falvation in any other but in Chrift, are, if they understood one another, at bottom, or at leaft in all things any way material, entirely of the fame opinion. Accordingly the reader will, I hope, find that the reafoning in the following pages may easily be ap. plied by them all without exception.

In the first place, he who expects juftification by the imputed righteoufnefs of Chrift, hath the cleareft and strongest conviction of the obligation of the holy law of God upon every reasonable creature, and of its extent and purity. This will appear very evidently, if we confider what it is that brings any perfon to a belief or relish of this doctrine. It must be a fenfe of fin, and fear of deferved wrath. Let us fearch out the caufe by tracing the effects. Whence arifes the fear of wrath, or apprehenfion of God's displeasure? Only from a conviction of guilt. And what can produce a conviction of guilt, but a sense of obligation? This is manifeftly the doctrine of Scripture, which teaches us, that "by the law is the knowledge of fin”— and that "the law is a schoolmafter to bring us to Chrift." Those who have none at all, or a very imperfect sense of the obligation of the divine law, will never have the least eftecm of the righteousness of Chrift, which atones for their tranfgreffion of it; it muft appear to them to be foolishnefs whereas those who have a strong conviction of the juftice of the demand of the law, both efteem and use the plea of their Saviour's merit. Such alfo have a strong fenfe of the extent and purity of the law of God, as well as its obligation in general. Whilst others confider nothing as fin, but the groffeft and most notorious crimes, they are deeply fenfible of the alienation of their hearts from God, whom they are bound fupremely to love, and to whofe glory they are obliged to be habitually and univerfally fubfervient.

This conviction of the obligation of the divine law, fo effentially connected with, or rather fo neceffarily previous to, an acceptance of the imputed righteoufnefs of Chrift, is evidently founded upon the relation of man to God, as a creature to his Creator. This relation then continues, and must continue, unchangeable; therefore the obligation founded upon it must be unalienable; and all thofe who have once been fenfible of it, muft continue to be fo, unless we fuppofe them blinded to the knowledge of God as Creator, by the difcovery of his mercy in Chrift the Redeemer. But this is abfurd; for the fubfequent relation of a finner to God, as forgiven and reconciled through

Christ, never can take away, nay, never can alter his natural relation as a creature, nor the obligation founded' upon it. Neither can it be conceived as confiftent with the perfections of God, to abate the demands of his law; that is to fay, a perfect conformity to his holy will.* Every the leaft deviation from it, by tranfgreffion, or neglect of duty, must still be evil in itself, and muft ftill be seen, and efteemed to be fo by the God of truth, who cannot lie. Now, is there any thing in the gospel that hath the leaft tendency to leffen the fenfe of this obligation, after it hath been once difcovered? Very far from it: on the contrary, all that Christ hath done for the falvation of finners, as its immediate confequence, magnifies the law, and makes it honorable.

Perhaps it may be thought, that the releafing a finner from the fanction of the law, or the punishment incurred

Since mention has been made of perfect conformity to the will of God, or perfect obedience to his law, as the duty of man, which is indeed the foundation of this whole doctrine, I think it neceffary to observe, that fome deny this to be properly required of man, as his duty in the prefent fallen frate, because he is not able to perforin it. But fuch do not feem to attend either to the meaning of perfect obedience, or to the nature or caufe of this inability. Perfect obedience is obedience by any creature, to the utmoft extent of his natural powers. Even in a state of innocence, the holy difpofitions of Adam would not have been equal in ftrength and activity to thofe of creatures of an bigher rank: but furely to love God, who is infinitely amiable, with all the heart, and above all, to confecrate all his powers and faculties, without exception, and without intermiffion, to God's fervice, must be undeniably the duty of every intelligent creature. And what fort of inability are we under to pay this? Our natural faculties are furely as fit for the fervice of God as for any bafer purpose: the inability is only moral, and lies wholly in the averfion of our hearts from fuch employment. Does this then take away the guilt? Muft God relax his law because we are not willing to obey it? Confult even modern philofophers; and fuch of them as allow there is any fuch thing as vice, will tell you, that it lies in evil or misplaced affections. Will then that which is ill in itself excufe its fruits in any degree from guilt or blame? The truth is, notwithstanding the loud charge of licentioufoefs upon the truths of the gospel, there is no other fyftem that ever I perufed, which preferves the obligations of the law of God in its ftrength: the most part of them, when thoroughly examined, juft amount to this, that men are bound, and that it is RIGHT and MEET and FIT that they should be as good and as holy as they themselves incline. VOL. I.

G

by pardon purchased and beftowed, has this effect: and here it is, to be fure, that men by their partial views, are apt to fuppofe the objection lies.

But let us only reflect, that the obligation to duty and. obedience to the Creator, hath been seen by a believer in the strongest light, and muft continue to be fenfible. Will he then be induced to act in the face of a perceived obligation, by an inftance of unspeakable mercy? Is this reafonable to fuppofe? or rather, is it not felf contradictory and abfurd? It is fo far from being true, that this mercy difpofes to obedience, as a peculiar and additional motive, as I fhall afterwards fhew more fully in its proper place. In the mean time, it is felf-evident, that it can be no hinderance. What leads us into error in this matter, is what happens fometimes in human affairs. In a human government, mercy or a promife of impunity for paft crimes, may enable, though even in that cafe, not incline a rebel. lious traitor to renew his wickednefs. But this is a moft unjust and partial view of the cafe, in which the very cir cumftance is wanting upon which the chief stress ought to be laid. Human laws reach only outward actions, becaufe human knowledge is fo imperfect that it cannot difcover the difpofition of the heart and as all profeffions are not fincere, fo kindness is often beftowed on improper objects. This kindnefs, however, though it may difcover the impropriety, cannot caufe it.

But make the fimilitude complete, and fee how it will lead us to determine. Suppofe one who hath been in rebellion, deeply and inwardly convinced of the evil of rebellion, and his obligation to fubmiffion; fuppofe this conviction fo flrong, that he confeffeth the juftnefs of the fentence condemning him to die, which is very confiftent with a defire of life: will a pardon offered or intimated to such a person make him difloyal? Is this its natural, nay, is it its poffible effect? If it could be fuppofed to have any fuch confequence at all, it could only be in this diftant way, that pardon feems to leffen the fenfe of a judge's difpleasure at the crime. But even this can have no place here, becaufe fufficient care is taken to prevent any fuch abufe of it, by the fubftitution and vicarious fufferings of a Mediator.