thofe, who in the laft ages have firmly adhered to it, and conftantly teftified to that effectual influence which it had on their walk before God: nor do I know that any perfons, in those days, who were eminent for holinefs, can be named, who did not cordially affent to it. I doubt not, that many, who greatly differ from others, in the explication of the doctrine, may be eminently, at leaft, fincerely holy but it is not comely to find fome others who give very little evidence of their diligent" following after that holinefs, without which no man can fee God," vehemently declaiming against that doctrine as deftructive of holiness, which was fo fruitful in it, in former days. Nor, (2.) Doth it yet appear, that an attempt to introduce a contrary doctrine, hath had any great fuccefs in the reformation of men's lives; nor hath perfonal righteousness, as yet, thrived much under the conduct of it. It will be time enough to fcek countenance to it by declaiming against that which had better effects, when it hath a little more commended itself by its fruits. And, (3.) It would not be amifs, if this part of the controverfy among us all, were iffued in the advice of the Apoftle James- "Shew me thy faith by thy works, and I will fhew thee my faith by my works." Let us all labour that fruits may thus far determine of doctrines, as to their ufe unto the interest of holiness: for that faith which doth not evidence itself by works; that hath not this (evdev) index, which St. James calls for, is of no confideration herein. 2. The fame objection was laid againft the doctrine of the Apostle Paul, which fufficiently argues, that it is the fame doctrine which is now affaulted with it. This himself notices more than once. Rom. iii. 31. "Do we make void the law through faith?" It is an objection he anticipates; the fubftance of which was, that "he deftroyed the law," took off all obligation to obedience, and brought in Antinomianifm. So again, chap. vi. I. "What shall we say then, fhall we continue in fin, fin, that grace may abound?"-Some thought this the natural confequence of his doctrine, and fome think fo ftill. The fame objection occurs again, ver. 15. "What then, fhall we continue in fin, because we are not under the law, but under grace?" We have therefore no reason to be furprised nor moved at this charge, for it is no other than what was infinuated against the doctrine of the Apostle himself, whatever enforcements are now given it by fubtilty of arguing, or rhetorical exaggerations. It is evident, however, that there are naturally in the minds of men, efficacious prejudices against this part of the mystery of the Gospel, which discovered themfelves betimes, and ceafed not till they had corrupted the whole doctrine of the church. 3. It is granted, that this doctrine, fingly by itself, or in conjunction with whatever elfe concerns the grace of God by Jefus Chrift, is liable to abufe, by thofe in whom darkness and the love of fin is predominant. Hence, from the beginning, fome fancied that a bare affent to the Gospel was that faith whereby they should be faved; and that they might be fo, however they continued to live in fin. This is evident, particularly from the Epiftles of John, James, and Jude. Against this pernicious evil we can give no relief, while " men love darkness more than light :" and it is vanity to fuppofe that the new modellings of this doctrine will prevent future abuse. Thefe general obfervations being fufficient of themfelves, to difcard this objection from any place in the minds of fober men, I fhall only add the confideration of those answers which the Apostle Paul gives to it. The objection made to the Apoftle was-That he made void the law-rendered good works needlefs-and that, according to his doctrine, men might live in fin, unto the advancement of grace. And as to his fense hereof, we may obferve, First, Firft, He never once returns that answer, which fome think is the only one that can remove the objection, namely, the neceffity of our own personal righteousness, obedience or works, in order to our Juftification before God. And is it not strange, that if this indeed was his doctrine, and the contrary a mistake of it, namely, that our own righteousness had a share in our Juftification; that he, who so remarkably infifts upon the nature, ufe, and neceffity of good works, fhould not make use of this truth in answer to the objection, which charged him with rendering them all needlefs and ufelefs? Is it not ftrange that he should not, once at least, fomewhere or other, intimate, that, though he rejected the works of the law, yet he maintained the neceflity of evangelical works, in order to our Juftification before God, as the condition of it? But he is fo far from any fuch plea, that when the most unavoidable occafion was adminiftered unto it, he not only waves any mention of it, but affirms that which plainly thews he allowed not of it. See Eph. ii. 9, 10. Secondly, In his answer to this objection he no where infists on the common principle of moral duties, but on those reasons and motives of holiness and good works which are peculiar to believers: for the question was not, whether all mankind were obliged to obedience by the moral law; but whether there were an obligation from the Gospel upon believers to good works, fuited to affect and conftrain their minds unto them. This is the true state of the queftion; for, as to unbelievers, we have nothing to do with them in this matter; evangelical motives are not adapted to enforce their obedience *; they are under the law, and there we leave them to the authority of God in the law. The Apoftle confines his inquiry to believers †. Thirdly, The answers, which he returns (pofitively) to this objection, wherein he declares the neceffity, na * 1 Cor. i. 23, 24. ture 2 Cor. iv. 4. Rom. vi. 2, 3. Eph. ii. 10. 1 ture and ufe of good works, are large, and comprehenfive of a great part of the doctrine of the Gospel. I fhall mention only the heads of them; and they are the fame that we plead in vindication of the fame truth. 1. He pleads the ordination of God-" God hath before ordained that we should walk in them," (Eph. ii. 10.) In the difpofal of the order of the caufes of falvation, he hath designed, that those who believe in Christ fhould live in, walk in, abound in good works. To this end, precepts, directions, motives and encouragements, are multiplied in the Scripture. And what need there any further dispute about their neceflity, among those who know what it is to believe, or what respect there is in the fouls and confciences of believers to the commands of God * ? 2. The Apostle anfwers, as we alfo do: " Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we eftablish the law." For though the law is principally established by the obedience of Chrift, yet it is not made · void as to believers by faith, and the imputation of his righteoufnefs. Neither of thefe exempts them from that obligation to obedience, which is prefcribed by the law. *But what force, fay fome, is there in this command or ordination of God, when, notwithstanding it, and if we are not obedient, we fhall be justified by the imputation of Chrift's righteoufnefs? I anfwer: It is believers only that we fpeak of; and to fuppofe that their minds are not as effectually influenced with the authority of God, as to duty, as if it was in order to Juftification, arifes from ignorance of the nature of faith, and the motives by which the minds of believers are affected. Befides, the fallacy of this exception confifts ia feparating Juftification and Sanctification, which God has made infeparable; and in compounding things that are diftinct, namely, Juftification and eternal Salvation. It is faith alone that gives efficacy to gofpel commands, effectually to influence the foul to obedience; and the obligation is more powerfully constraining, as they are given to those who are justified, than if they were given to them in order to their Juftification; for then they must be supposed to have their efficacy on them before they believed, which is impoffible. law. They are ftill, by virtue thereof, obliged to love the Lord their God with all their heart, and their neighbour as themselves." They are indeed freed from the law and all its commands to duty, as it abides in its first confideration-" Do this and live ;" the oppofite to which is—" Curfed is every one that finneth." For he who is under the obligation of the law in order to Juftification, is under its curfe. But we are made free to give obedience to it, on gospel motives, and for gofpel ends; and the obligation of it on all believers is fuch, that the leaft tranfgreffion of it hath the nature of fin. But are they hereon bound over by the law to everlasting punishment? or, as fome phrafe it," Will "God damn thofe who tranfgrefs the law, without which all this is nothing?"-I afk again, what do they think of it? and, upon a fuppofition that he will do fo, what they think will become of themselves? For my part, I fay, No; even as the Apoftle faith, "There is no condemnation to them that are in Chrift Jefus." Where then, they will fay, is the neceflity "of obedience from the obligation of the law, if God "will not damn those who tranfgrefs it ?" I answer; it were well if fome men understood what they say in thefe things, or else would learn to hold their peace. The law equally requires obedience in all instances of duty, if it require any at all. As to its obligatory power, it is capable neither of difpenfation nor relaxation, while the effential differences of good and evil remain. If, then, none can be obliged to duty by virtue of its commands, unless they muft, on every tranfgreffion, fall under its curfe, either it obligeth no perfon at all to obedience, or no one can be faved. But, although, we are freed from the curfe and condemning power of the law by Jefus Chrift, yet while we are in this world, in order to the accomplishment of God's defign for the reftoration S * Rom. vi. |