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, muft ftill be evil in itfelf, and muft ftill be feen, and efleemed to be fo by the God of truth, who cannot lic. Now, is there any thing in the gofpel 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 Chrift 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 relcafing a finner from the fanction of the law, or the punifhment 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 neceflary to obferve, that fome deny this to be properly required of man, as his duty in the prefent fallen ftate, because he is not able to perform 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 flate of innocence, the holy difpofitions of Adam would not have been equal in ftrength and activity to thofe of creatures of an higher 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 pnrpofe: 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 licentioulnefs upon the truths of the gofpel, there is no other fyftem that ever I perufed, which preferves the obligation of the law of God in its ftrength; the mofl part of them, when thoroughly examined, jult amount to this, that men are bound, and that it is RIGHT and MEET and FIT that they fhould be as good and as holy as they themselves incline.

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

But let us only reflect, that the obligation to duty and obedience to the Creator, hath been feen by a believer in the ftrongest light, and must 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 disposes 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 promise of impunity for paft crimes, may enable, though even in that cafe, not incline a rebellious traitor to renew his wickednefs. But this is a moft unjuft 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 kindness, however, though it may discover the impropriety, it cannot cause 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 ftrong, that he confefleth the juftice of the fentence condemning him to die, which is very confiftent with a defire of life will a pardon offered or intimated to fuch a perfon 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 abuse of it, by the fubftitution and vicarious fufferings of a Mediator.

I cannot help obferving here, that the fimilitude above ufed will lead us to the difcovery of one great cause of the objection against which I am reafoning. It arifes from that corruption of heart, and inward oppofition to the law of God in its extent and purity, which is in all men by nature, and continues in all who are not renewed in the fpirit of their minds. As they have a ftrong tendency and inclination to tranfgrefs the law where they dare, they are ready to think, that the hopes of impunity must encourage every one to a bold violation of it. And no doubt this would be true, if there could be any real esteem or cordial acceptance of the gofpel, without a previous conviction of the obligation of the law, and the guilt and demerit of every tranfgreffor. But fuppofing what is in truth the cafe with every believer, that there is a real and strong conviction of the obligation of the law of God upon every rational creature, which cannot be taken away; to imagine that the mercy of God in pardoning finners for Christ's fake will leffen or weaken the fenfe of this obligation, is a most manifeft contradiction. On the contrary, fin muft needs have received a mortal blow, the love of it muft neceffarily have been deftroyed, before pardon in this way could be fought or obtained: fo that the apoftle might well fay," How fhall we that are dead to fin, live "any longer therein?"

In the fecond place, he who believes in Chrift, and expects juftification through his imputed righteoufness, must have the deepest and strongest sense of the evil of fin in itfelf. This is in a good measure included in, or an immediate confequence of, what has been already mentioned. For the obligation of the law, as hinted above, is but very

But this is impoffible; for though there may be fome fort of fear of punishment, occafioned by displays of divine power, where there is no true humiliation of mind, or genuine conviction of fin; this is but like the impatient ftruggles of a chained flave, instead of the willing fubjection of a penitent child. There is fill in all fuch an inward murmuring against the fentence, as that of an unjuft and rigorous tyrant, and not of a righteous judge. Therefore, though fuch fhould pretend to rely on the merits of Chrift for pardon and deliverance, it is plainly not from their hearts, and therefore neither to the faving of their fouls, nor to the reformation of their lives.

imperfect, if we confidler it only as founded on the power of God, and the dependence of the creature, and not alfo on the holinefs, juftice, and goodness of the law itself. In the first fenfe, perhaps, it may be felt by the wicked in this world, at least, we are fure, it is felt by devils and damned fpirits in a feparate flate. They know that they muft fuffer, because they will not obey. But where there is a complete fenfe of obligation, it implies a belief of the righteoufnefs of the law, as well as the power of the lawgiver, of the equity, nay, the excellence of the command, as well as the feverity of the fanction. All fuch not only believe that God will punish for fin, but that it is most just that he fhould do fo, and that fin has richly deferved it.

It may therefore seem unneceffary to add any thing on this fubject more than has been already faid: but I have mentioned it by itfelf, becaufe befides that fenfe of the obligation and purity of the law of God, which must pave the way to a finner's acceptance of the righteousness of Chrift, there is a difcovery of the evil of fin, and its abominable nature, in every part of this "mystery of "godlinefs, God manifefted in the flesh," and the truths founded upon it; fo that the more thefe are believed, and the more they are attended to and recollected, the more muft the believer be determined to hate and abhor every wicked and falfe way; every new view which he takes of the gospel of his falvation, every act of trust and confidence exerted upon it, must increase his horror of fin, and excite him to fly from it.

Let us confider a little what views are prefented us of the evil of fin in the doctrine of Chrift, and of him crucified. Here we fee that a holy and just God would not forgive fin without an atonement. What a demonftration is this of its malignity, if carefully attended to, and kept conftantly in our eye, as a part of our very idea of the Divine Nature! The difficulty in this cafe, is our partiality in our own caufe; we are unwilling to think fin fo very blame-worthy, because this is condemning ourselves; but, let us confider what views an all-wife and impartial God hath of it, and form ours upon his. And that we may not fo much as once blafphemoufly imagine, that he

lfo is partial on his own fide, let us remember that he is the God of love, who, by this very falvation, hath magnified his love in a manner that paffeth knowledge. He fhews his fenfe of the evil of the crime, even whilst he is contriving, nay, in the very contrivance of a proper way for the criminal's efcape. He is not, fo to fpeak, setting forth the malignity of the offence, in order to juftify the feverity of his own vengeance, but he is exerting his amiable attribute of mercy, and yet here muft the evil of fin appear.

Confider, in a particular manner, upon this fubje&t, the dignity and glory of the perfon who made this atonement. The value of the purchase may be seen in the greatnefs of the price; the evil of fin in the worth of the propitiation. For we are not redeemed with corrupti"ble things, fuch us filver and gold, but with the precious "blood of Chrift, as of a Lamb without blemish and "without fpot."* It was no lefs a perfon than the eternal and only begotten Son of God, who was before all worlds, the brightnefs of his Father's glory, and the exprefs image of his perfon, who fuffered in our ftead. Whoever confiders the frequent mention in the facred oracles, of the glory and dignity of the perfon of Christ, must be fatisfied that it is not without defign; and none can truly relish or improve these truths, but fuch as thence learn the evil of fin, the immenseness of that debt which required one of fo great, nay, of infinite and inexhauftible riches, to be able to pay it. A creature indeed behoved to fuffer; and therefore he became the fon of man, but intimately united to the Creator, God blessed for ever. It was one of the firft and earlieft confeffions of faith, That Jefus Chrift was the Son of God; and this belief must have the ftrongeft influence in fhewing us the evil of fin, which none else was able to expiate.

In many paffages of Scripture, God's fending his own Son into the world to fave finners, is represented as the strongest proof poffible of his compaffion and love. The nearness of the relation teaches us, as it were, to sup