naked, bread to the hungry, water to the thirsty, light to them who sit in darkness, liberty to the captives, riches to the poor, and in one word, of all that is suitable to the sinner's complicated misery, all that is calculated to relieve him from it. If the old law be perfect, there can be no place for a new. If the moral law be unchangeable, a milder is impossible. But the former positions are true, and therefore the latter. By the old, or original law of his creation, man was certainly bound to believe whatever God should reveal, and to obey whatever he should enjoin. It cannot be denied that such obligations must result from the relation between God and the rational creature. Hence, soon as a Saviour was exhibited in the glorious gospel, fallen man was bound by the old, the origiginal law, to believe all that was revealed, and to obey all that was enjoined, respecting him. The moment that the gospel revealed the new object, the law obliged him to the new duty in relation to it. If laws were to be multiplied, according to a man's diversified circumstances, it would follow, that there should be one law for the married, another for the unmarried, one for parents, another for children, &c. But who sees not the absurdity of this? Long as the perfection of the moral law is maintained, a milder cannot be admitted. Once to imagine that the all-perfect God should emit an imperfect law, a law which is not a complete rule of duty, is most absurd. The Psalmist, saying, "I have seen an end of all perfection," immediately adds, "but thy commandment is exceeding broad," Pal. cxix. 96. It is not so, however, if it do not E e

extend to all possible duty, and particularly to faith in Jesus Christ, repentance unto life, and all the duties which suppose either our fallen state, or the revalation of the gospel. Law and gospel, though joined in the dispensation of grace, are not blended together, but quite distinct. So much so, that the law is not the gospel, nor the gospel it. The gospel offer indeed, rides as in state, I may say; being attended as on the right hand with the great and precious promises, to all who embrace it; and on the left, with all the terrors and threatenings of the fiery law, to those who reject it. Still, however, it is in itself very different from that law. The gospel, indeed, says, "He that believeth, shall be saved;" but it does not add, "He that believeth not, shall be damned."

That is the language of the law, and it will see to the execution of its own sentence. Nor is there the least reason that the glorious gospel should speak so. The sinner, rejecting its gracious offer, it leaves him where it found him, under the curse of the law. For he who believeth not, is con-、 demned already, John iii. 18. Refusing to come into the new covenant, he must of necessity continue under the old.

The patrons of the new, the remedial law, tell us, that it does not require sinless or perfect obedience. But if so, then the sins or imperfections attending that obedience are no transgressions of that law, and if no transgressions, then no sins, 1 John iii. 4.; the amount of which is, that sin is not sin. If it be granted that the imperfections attending sincere obedience to the new law are really sins, and such

a concession cannot decently be withheld, still they are not sins against that law, it not requiring sinless obedience; for it is a known maxim, that where no law is, there is no transgression, Rom. iv. 15. And therefore allowing, as it seems unavoidable, that these imperfections are sins, yet still they are not sins against the new law, but only against the old, the rigid and original law: i. e. that in them, sincere converts do not sin against that law which they are under, but against that from whose demands. they are delivered. If these consequences be absurd, so must the new law from which they unavoidably follow; besides, if this mild law do not require sinless obedience, the necessity of the Surety's atonement falls to the ground, at least with respect to all the sins or imperfections posterior to sincere faith. For according to this doctrine, though it might be necessary that he should satisfy for their old sins, the transgressions of the old law, under which they originally were; yet there could be no necessity to suffer for these things which are no breach of the mild, the mitigated law. But to say the truth, Arminians speak very slightly of our Lord's suretiship. According to them, he rather became surety, that we should perform certain deeds, than that he should act and suffer in our law-room, or stead.

To these observations, let me add those of a famous Foreigner, who is happy in illustrating how the moral law binds to faith and repentance.

"Coronidis vice, &c. i. e. In conclusion, we shall solve two difficulties, which may exercise the most ingenious. For by arguments neither weak nor ob

scure, it seems quite evident, that the moral law is not only imperfect, but also unprofitable, because it commands neither faith nor repentance: in which two things, however, is contained the whole service of God, and whatever is religious in man. The Apostle indeed, Acts xx. 21. refers the whole of his ministry to these two heads, repentance towards God, and faith towards Christ.

"It seems plain, that nothing concerning faith in Christ, is enjoined in the moral law, for it makes no mention of Christ, and redemption from sins. For the moral law is a natural debt, and commands nothing more, than what man was bound to do be fore the fall. But man before the fall, was not bound to believe in Christ. Wherefore the Apostle distinguishes faith from the law, saying, that the law is not of faith, Gal. iii. 12. Hence it is, that he so frequently opposes the law to faith: which he would not have done, if faith were contained in the law.

"God, indeed, in the preface to the decalogue, proclaims, that he is the God of Israel, whence it appears deducible, that faith is commanded in the law, because God is not our God, except in Christ. But this is adduced, beside the purpose: For these words, I am thy God, command nothing, neither are they a part of the decalogue, no more than what is added, concerning their deliverance from the land of Egypt. Add, that God is also our God in respec of creation and preservation. But notwithstanding these things, we maintain that faith is commanded in the law, not in express words indeed, but by necessary consequence. For the law commands us

to love God with all our heart, and to obey him in all things without exception, and therefore also to believe him when speaking, whatever it may be which he says or enjoins. Nor is there a doubt, but that' he who does not hear Christ, but rejects his doctrine, violates the command of the law, by which God willeth to be loved and obeyed.

"Nor can it be denied, but that Adam before the fall, was bound to have faith in God: not the faith indeed of the remission of sins, (for that was not yet necessary) but faith, by which he ought to believe that God would be faithful in his promises. and that there was to be no doubting concerning his word. Nor does the obligation, by which we are at this day bound to believe the gospel, arise from any thing else, than from that first obligation, by which man, before he sinned, and immediately from the first moment of his creation, was bound to believe every word of God. Wherefore though the faith of the remission of sins by Christ does not rest upon the decalogue, because such a remission is not in the law, yet certain it is, that man is bound by the law to believe every word of God.

"In vain is it objected, that faith in Christ was not commanded to Adam before the fall. For neither before the fall was he forbidden to mix with idolaters, to lend upon usury, or to marry an infidel, because then there was no need of these prohibitions. Yet certain it is, that by these, his posterity are bound, in virtue of that general law, by which, prior to the fall of man, God demanded perfect obedience from him. Thus, subjects, who have bound themselves with an oath to obey their prince,