Hence it is that the apostle calls the Mosaic dispensation sometimes the law, and sometimes the Gospel, while he styles the Christian dispensation sometimes the law of Christ, and sometimes the Gospel of Christ.

That St. Paul indifferently calls the Mosaic dispensation law and Gospel, is evident from the following texts: "Every man that is circumcised is a debtor to the whole law," Gal. v, 3. Here the word law undoubtedly means the Mosaic dispensation. Again: "To us was the Gospel preached, as well as to them," the Israelites who perished in the wilderness, for not believing Moses, Heb. iv, 2. Whence it follows, that "to THEM [the Israelites, who perished] the Gospel [i. e. the doctrines of grace and justice] was preached as well as to us," Christians, who are saved by obedient faith. Once more that what Moses preached to them was a doctrine of grace and of justice, is evident from this consideration: had the Mosaic Gospel been a doctrine of mere justice, it could not have been a Gospel like our gracious Gospel; and had it been a mere doctrine of grace, the apostle could never have excited us not to neglect our Christian Gospel, and great salvation, by pointing out to us the fearful destruction of the Israelites, who neglected their Jewish Gospel and salvation; "lest any Christian should fall after the same example of unbelief," Heb. iv, 11.

With respect to the Christian dispensation, the apostle calls it sometimes the law: "The doers of the law [i. e. of the preceptive part of the Gospel] shall be justified, when God shall judge the secrets of men according to my Gospel," Rom. ii, 13, 16, compared with Matt. xii, 36, 37. Sometimes he calls it the law of Christ: "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ," Gal. vi, 2: sometimes the laws of God: "I will write my laws [i. e. my evangelical precepts and promises] in their hearts," Heb. viii, 10; x, 16: sometimes the law of the Spirit, Rom. viii, 2: and sometimes the Gospel of Christ, Rom. i, 16. Hence it is that to be a Christian believer, in St. Paul's language, is "to be under the law of Christ," 1 Cor. ix, 21. As for St. James, he never calls the Christian dispensation Gospel; but he simply calls it either the law, James iv, 11, 12; ii, 10, the law of liberty, James ii, 12, or, the perfect law of liberty, James i, 25. St. John uses the same language in his epistles, in which he never mentions the word Gospel, and in which, speaking of the sins of Christian believers, he says, that "sin is the transgression of the law;" whence it follows, that the sin of Christians is the transgression of the law of Christ, or of the holy doctrines of justice preached by Jesus Christ. To deny it, would be asserting we cannot sin; for St. Paul informs us that the Mosaic law is done away, 2 Cor. iii, 11. Now, if no Christian is under the law of Moses, and if Christ never adopted the law of our nature, and never grafted the moral part of the Mosaic law into the Christian dispensation; or, in other terms, if Christ's Gospel is a lawless institution, it necessarily follows that no Christian can sin: for sin is not imputed or charged, (that is, there is no sin,) "where there is no law," Rom. v, 13. Hence it is that Antinomian doctrines of grace represent fallen, adulterous, bloody believers as spotless, or sinless before God, in all their sins. Such is the necessary consequence of a lawless Gospel armed with pointless"rules of life!" Such the dreadful tendency of doctrines of grace torn away from the doctrines of justice.

SECTION II.

Remarks on the two Gospel axioms, or capital truths, upon which the doctrines of grace and justice are founded-Augustine himself once granted both those truths-Rigid Arminians indirectly deny the one, and rigid Calvinists the other-How the partial defenders of the doctrines of justice and grace try to save appearances, with respect to the part of the truth which they indirectly oppose.

So noble and solid a superstructure as the Gospel, i. e. the Scripture doctrines of grace and justice, undoubtedly stands upon a noble and sure foundation. Accordingly we find that the primitive Gospel rests on two principles, the one theological and the other moral. These two principles, or, if you please, these two pillars of Gospel truth, may, for distinction sake, be called Gospel axioms; at least, I beg leave to call them so. Nor will the candid reader deny my request, if he consider the following definitions:

I. AN AXIOM is a self-evident truth, which at once recommends itself to the understanding, or the conscience of every unprejudiced man. Thus, two and two make four, is an AXIOM in every counting house. And that "the absolute necessity of all human actions is incompatible with a moral law and a day of judgment," is an axiom in every unprejudiced mind.

II. The two Gospel axioms are the two principles, or capital self-evident truths, on which the primitive Gospel, that is, the Scripture doc. trine of grace and justice is founded.

III. The first Gospel axiom bears up the holy doctrines of grace, and when it is cordially received, is equally destructive of proud Phari. saism and the unholy doctrines of lawless grace. This axiom is the following self-evident truth, which recommends itself to the mind and conscience of every candid Bible Christian :-"Our first talent or degree of salvation is merely of God's free grace in Christ, without any work or endeavour of our own; and our eternal salvation is originally, capitally,* and finally† of God's free grace in Christ; through our not

* A Solifidian would say entirely, and by this means he would leave no room for the second Gospel axiom, for the rewardableness of the works of faith, and for the doctrine of remunerative justice. But by saying capitally, we avoid this threefold mistake, we secure the honour of holy free grace, and shut the door against its counterfeit.

By adding finally, we show that the top stone, as well as the foundation stone of our eternal salvation, is to be brought with "shouting, Grace! grace! unto it;" because if God had honoured his obedient saints with a sight of his heavenly glory for half an hour, and then suffered them to fall gently asleep in the bosom of oblivion, or to slide into a state of personal non-existence, he would have demonstrated his remunerative justice, and amply rewarded their best services. Hence it appears that God's giving eternal rewards of glory for a few temporary services, done by his own grace, is such an instance of free grace as nothing but eternal shouts of "Grace! grace!" can sufficiently acknowledge. We desire our mistaken brethren to consider this remark; otherwise they will wrong the truth and us, by continuing to say that our doctrines of grace allow indeed free grace to lay the foundation, but that they reserve to the works of our rectified free will the honour of bringing the top stone of our eternal salvation, with saying, "Works! works! unto it:" a Pharisaic doctrine this, which we abhor; loudly asserting that although our free, unnecessitated obedience of faith intervenes, yet God in Christ is the Omega as well as the Alpha,—the end, as well as the beginning, of our eternal salvation.

neglecting that first talent or degree of salvation. I say through our not neglecting, &c, to secure the connection of the two Gospel axioms, and to leave Scripture room for the doctrines of remunerative justice.

IV. The second Gospel axiom bears up the doctrines of justice, and extirpates the doctrine of free wrath. It is the following proposition, which, I believe, no candid Bible Christian will deny :-" Our eternal damnation is originally* and principally of our own personal free will, through an obstinate and final neglect of the first talent or degree of salvation."

These two Gospel axioms may be thus expressed: (1.) Our salvation is of God: or, there is free grace in God, which, through Christ, freely places all men in a state of temporary redemption, justification, or salvation, according to various Gospel dispensations, and crowns those who are faithful unto death with an eternal redemption, justification, or salvation. (2.) Our damnation is of ourselves: or, there is free will in man, by which he may, through the grace freely imparted to him in the day of temporary salvation, work out his own eternal salvation: or he may, through the natural power which angels had to sin in heaven, and our first parents in paradise, choose to sin away the day of temporary salvation. And by thus working out his damnation, he may provoke just wrath, which is the same as despised free grace, to punish him with eternal destruction.

These two truths, or axioms, might be made still plainer, thus: (1.) Our gracious and just God, in a day of salvation begun, sets life or death before us. (2.) As free-willing, assisted creatures, we may, during that day, choose which we please: we may "stretch out our hand to the water, or to the fire." Or thus: (1.) There is holy, righteous, and partial free grace in God. (2.) There is free will in redeemed, assisted man, whereby he is capable of obeying or disobeying God's holy, righteous, and partial free grace. For conveniency's sake, these axioms may be shortened thus: (1.) The doctrine of holy free grace and partial mercy in God is true. (2.) The doctrine of rectified, assisted free will in man, and of impartial justice in God, is true also.

This lovely pair of evangelical propositions appears to me so essential to the fulness and harmony of the Gospel, that I believe if Pelagius and Augustine themselves were alive, neither of them would dare directly to rise against it. Time, or envy, has destroyed the works of Pelagius, the great asserter of free will and the doctrines of justice; we cannot therefore support the doctrines of free grace by his concessions: but we have the writings of Augustine, the great defender of God's distinguishing love, and the doctrine of free grace; and yet, partial as he was to these doctrines, in a happy moment, he boldly stood up for free

* I add the word originally, to cut off the self-excusing opinion of those men who charge their eternal damnation upon an absolute decree of reprobation, or upon Adam's first transgression. As for the word principally, it secures the part in the damnation of the wicked, which the Scriptures ascribe to the righteous God: it being certain, (1.) That God judicially hardens his slothful and unpro. fitable servants, by taking from them, at the end of their day of grace, the talent of softening grace, which they have obstinately buried. And, (2.) That he judicially reprobates or damns them, by pronouncing this awful sentence, "Depart, ye cursed," &c. A flame of vindictive justice belongs to the Gospel of Christ, Heb. xii, 29, but not a single spark of free wrath.

will and the doctrines of justice. This appears from the judicious and candid questions which he proposes in one of his epistles:-Si non est gratia Dei, quomodo salvat mundum? Si non est liberum arbitrium, quomodo judicat mundum? If there be not free grace in God, how does he graciously save the world? If there be not free will in men, how does he righteously judge the world?"

To conclude: whoever holds forth these two Bible axioms, “There is free grace in God, whence man's salvation graciously flows in various degrees;" and, "There is free will in every man, whence the damnation of all that perish justly proceeds:" whoever, I say, consistently holds forth these two self-evident propositions, is, in my humble judgment, a Gospel minister, who "rightly divides the word of truth." He is a friend to both the doctrines of partial grace and impartial justice, of mercy and obedience, of faith and good works: in short, he preaches the primitive Gospel, reunites the two opposite gospels of the day, and equally obviates the errors of Honestus and Zelotes, who stand up for these modern gospels.

If you ask what those errors are, I answer, as follows:-Honestus, the Pelagian, seldom preaches free grace, and never dwells upon the absolute sovereignty with which God at first distributes the various talents of his grace: and when he preaches free will, he seldom preaches free will initially rectified and continually assisted by free grace; rarely, if ever, deeply humbling his hearers by displaying the total helplessness of unrectified and unassisted free will: and thus he veils the delightful doctrine of God's free grace, clouds the evangelical doctrine of man's free will, and inadvertently opens the door to self-conceited Pharisaism. On the other hand, Zelotes, the Solifidian, or rigid Calvinist, seldom or never preaches rectified, assisted free will; he harps only on the doctrines of absolute necessity; and when he preaches free grace, he too often preaches, (1.) A cruel free grace, which turning itself into free wrath, with respect to a majority of mankind, absolutely passes them by, and consigns them over to everlasting, infallible damnation, by means of necessary, foreordained sin; and, (2.) An unscriptural free grace, which turning itself into lawless fondness, with respect to a number of favourite souls, absolutely insures to them eternal redemption, complete justifica. tion, and finished salvation, be they ever so unfaithful.

By these means Zelotes spoils the doctrine of free grace, undesignedly injures the doctrine of holiness, and utterly destroys the doctrine of justice. For when he denies that the greatest part of mankind have any interest in God's redeeming love; when he intimates that the doctrines of an absolute, necessitating election to eternal life are true; and that God's reprobates are not less necessitated to sin to the end and be damned, than God's elect are to obey to the end and be saved; does he not pour contempt upon the throne of Divine justice? Does he not make the supreme Judge, who fills that throne, appear as unwise when he distributes heavenly rewards, as cruel, when he inflicts infernal punishments?

Honestus and Zelotes will probably think that I misrepresent them. Honestus will say that he cordially believes God is full of free grace for all men, and that he only thinks it would be unjust in God to be partial in the distribution of his free grace. But when Honestus reasons thus,

does he not confound grace and justice? Does he not sap the founda. tion of the throne of grace, under pretence of establishing the throne of justice? If God cannot do what he pleases with his grace, and if justice always binds him in the distribution of his favours, does not his grace deserve the name of impartial justice, far better than the appellation of free grace ?

For

As Honestus tries to save appearances with regard to the doctrines of grace, so does Zelotes with regard to the doctrines of justice. "The Gospel I preach," says he, "is highly consistent with the doctrines of justice. I indeed intimate that the elect are necessitated to believe and be eternally saved; and the reprobates to continue in sin and be lost: but both this salvation of the elect, and damnation of the reprobates, perfectly agree with Divine equity. For Christ, by his obedience unto death, merited the eternal salvation of all that shall be saved: and Adam, by his first act of disobedience, deserved the absolute reprobation of all that shall be damned. Our doctrines of grace are therefore highly consistent with the doctrines of justice." This argument appears unanswerable to Zelotes: but I confess it does not satisfy me. if the doctrine of absolute necessity be thus foisted into the Gospel, and if Christ make his elect people absolutely and unavoidably willing to obey and go to heaven, while Adam makes his reprobate people absolutely and unavoidably willing to sin and go to hell; I should be glad to know how the elect can be wisely judged according to, and rewarded for their faith and good works; and how the reprobates can be justly sentenced according to, and punished for their unbelief and bad works. I repeat it, the doctrine of absolute predestination to life or death eternal, which is one and the same with the doctrine of an absolute necessity to believe or disbelieve, to obey or disobey, to the last, such a doctrine, I say, is totally subversive of the doctrines of justice. For reason deposes that it is absurd to give to necessary agents a law, or rule of life, armed with promises of reward, and threatenings of punishment. And conscience declares that it is unjust and cruel to inflict fearful, eternal punishments upon beings that have only moved or acted by absolute necessity: whether such beings are running streams, aspiring flames, fall. ing stones, turning wheels, mad men, bound thinkers, bound willers, or bound agents; supposing such bound thinkers, bound willers, and bound agents, did think, will, and act, as unavoidably as the wind raises a storm, and as necessarily as a fired cannon pours forth flames and destruction. Absolute necessity and a righteous judgment are absolutely incompatible, We must renounce the mistakes of rigid Calvinists, or give up the doctrines of justice.

SECTION III.

By whom chiefly the Gospel axioms were systematically parted; and under what pretences prejudiced, good men tore asunder the doctrines of grace and justice; and rent the one primitive, catholic Gospel, into the two partial gospels of the day.

FROM the preceding section it appears, that to preach the Gospel in its primitive purity, is so to hold forth and balance the two Gospel axioms