tity, pridė, malice, or infincerity of conversation, amongst the friends or enemies of this doctrine? So true is this, that they commonly have the appellation of the ftricter fort given them, by which is certainly understood, at least an apparent ftrictnefs of life and manners *.

As therefore experience doth not hinder, or rather warrants us to affirm, that thofe 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 neceffary confequence of their principles. What has induced me to this attempt, is not only the calumnies of enemies, but the weaknefs or treachery of professed friends. These last 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 ufe fuch rafh and uncautious expreffions, as do indeed juf tify the objection which the apoftle rejects with fo great abhorrence; and, in the heat of their zeal against the selfrighteous legalist, seem to ftate themselves as enemies, in every respect, to the law of God, which is holy, just 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 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 must herd amongit, or attach themfelves to the fociety of the best part of it: I obfarve, 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 fteady perfeverance. Whereas, ufually the whole merit of those who bring the acculation, is that of being uniformly wicked, and not fo much as profefiing what it was their indifpenfible duty both to have profeffed and practiled.

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

But of all the pretended Chriftians, one fort are worthy of the highest contempt, who, acknowledging the truth of this doctrine, call it dangerous, and are backward to teach or publish it, lest it fhould be abused. Would fuch weak, half-thinking mortals, be wifer than God? Hath he publifhed it, and fhall we throw a veil over it, to remedy the raihnefs of his proceeding? Do the Scriptures reveal, and are we backward to "to teftify the gospel 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 practice.

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 aboun ding in the gospel, is fo far from being an encouragement to fin, that it destroys 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 ufes them. in proportion as the grace of God offered through Christ in the gofpel is received and applied, fin is mortified in the heart; thus fays the apoftle Paul elfewhere, "God for"bid that I fhould glory, fave in the crofs of our Lord Jefus Chrift, by which the world is crucified unto me,

So

fcripture on this fubject, is juit, 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 fubihituted in its room, as all juft definitions may be without inconvehience, the apofile's words, "What thall we fay then? fhall we continue in fin that grace may abound ?" would be quite unnatural and abfurd.

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 alfo afferting in the middle of his reafoning upon the point, "Do we then make void the law "through faith? Gol forbid; yea, we establish the lawt. In the profecution of this fubject, it will be neceffary, first, 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 ftopped, "and all the world become guilty before God.-There"fore by the deeds of the law, there fhall be no flefh jufti"fied in his fight.-But we are juftified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Chrift Jefus :-Whom "God hath fet forth as a propitiation, through faith in his "blood, to declare his righteoufnefs, for the remiffion of fins "that are past, through the forbearance of God.-Where "is boafting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Therefore we conclude, without the deeds of the

Nay, but by the law of faith. "that a man is juftified by faith " 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 righteoufnefs 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 tranf greffion, and therefore expofed to the dreadful confequences of his difpleafure; that it was not agreeable to the dictates of his wifdom, holinefs and juftice, to forgive their fins without an atonement or fatisfaction: and therefore

* Gal. vi. 14. † Ror. ii. 31.

he raised up for them a Saviour, Jefus Chrift, who, as the fecond Adam, perfectly fulfilled the whole law, and of fered himself up a facrifice upon the crofs in their stead :that this his righteoufnefs 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 Chrifi Jefus, which they neither have contributed to the procuring, 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 progress of this difcourse, 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 pleafed to attend to the following obfervations; 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 righte ousness, and those 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 diftinely 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 becaufe it is my firm perfuafion, that however fome think it juftelt, or wifeft, cr fafeft, to exprefs 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 falvatim 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 applied by them all without exception.

In the first place, he who expects juftification by the imputed righteoufnefs of Chrift, hath the cleareft and ftrongest conviction of the obligation of the holy law of God upon every reafonable creature, and of its extent and purity. This will appear very evidently, if we confider what it is that brings any person to a belief or relifh 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 difpleasure? Only from a conviction of guilt. And what can produce a conviction of guilt, but a fenfe 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." Thofe who have none at all, or a very imperfect fenfe of the obligation of the divine law, will never have the leaft efteem of the righteoufnefs of Chrift, which atones for their tranfgreffion of it; it muft appear to them to be foolishnefs: whereas thofe who have a ftrong conviction of the juftice of the demand of the law, both efteem and ufe the plea of their Saviour's merit. Such alfo have a ftrong fenfe of the extent and purity of the law of God, as well as its obligation in general. Whilft others confider nothing as fin, but the groffest 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 ncceflarily previ ous 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 muft continue, unchangeable; therefore the obliga tion 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 finner to God, as forgiven and reconciled through Chrift,