The advocates for these tenets may perhaps indeed deny the charge of Antinomianism; and may assert, that what they maintain is simply this: Provided only we do our best, we are sure of obtaining everlasting happiness.

God forbid, however, that such a damnatory scheme of doctrine should ever find admittance into the church of Christ! The thunder of Papal anathemas spoke comfort to the soul, compared to the horrible conclusion which must be drawn from these premises. If none are to be saved, but those who do their best; all the sons of Adam, without a single exception, must be involved in undistinguished ruin, and must be consigned to everlasting destruction.

But, in order to prevent the imputation of merely answering one assertion with another, let us proceed to a more close examination of this popular doctrine.

I. The system in question maintains, that, provided only we do our best, we shall infallibly be

In the English language we can express the difference between Antinomian belief, and Christian faith, by two distinct words. The Greek tongue, unfortunately, affords only one word to express both these ideas. Such appears to be the true key to the imaginary discrepancy between St. Paul and St. James. St. Paul strenuously maintains the orthodox doctrine of salvation by FAITH only, in opposition to the baneful heresy of Self-righteousness: St. James as strenuously denies the doctrine of salvation by BELIEF only, in opposition to the perverse licentiousness of Antinomianism.

saved. Hence the converse of it will be, that, provided we do not our best, we shall not be saved.

These premises being thus laid down, let me now ask; Will any man, in his sober senses, be content to risque his all, upon his having constantly done his best, and upon his having universally acted up to the power which was given him? Let him look into his past life, and be his own judge.

Has he invariably performed every action in so excellent a manner, that he cannot conceive it possible, that, with his present limited faculties, he could have performed it better? Has he never been deaf to the call of duty? Has he never neglected a single opportunity of doing good? Or, supposing for a moment that he has invariably performed every duty which offered itself to his notice; has he been diligent in making opportunities of being actively useful, and has he never omitted one good deed which he is conscious that he might have done? If he has failed in a single practicable point during his whole life, he has certainly not done the best he could; and therefore by his own principles he stands condemned.

But this is not all; these are only active duties. The grand business of self-regimen remains yet to be considered. Has he then invariably abstained from every evil action, which it was possible that he might have abstained from? Has he never yielded to any temptation, which reason tells him might have been conquered? A single transgression, be it ever so minute, which he could have

avoided, is alone sufficient to annul his claim to that line of conduct, which was the best that he was able to pursue.

To sum up the whole; has he in thought, word, and deed, without a single exception, really, heartily, and conscientiously, done the very best he could? Absolute perfection is now out of the question; the point is simply this; not whether he has lived a life of sinless obedience, but whether he has done the best he could. Unless he can answer in the affirmative, which probably no man will venture to do, he most undoubtedly is condemned by his own system. He, that does his best, will be saved: he, that does not his best, will not be saved.

It is plain, therefore, that upon these principles, a single violation of possible rectitude, a single omission of possible duty, is sufficient to plunge the soul into everlasting perdition. Is the most strenuous asserter of this doctrine willing to be tried by his own rule? No; he shrinks with terror from the conclusion, which must be drawn from such a system.

II. This favourite dogma being found untenable, the second part of the original proposition shall next be taken into consideration.

When Christ came into the world, he gave us a law more easy to obey than that of Moses: for God then relaxed from his ancient strictness; and proposed certain terms of salvation so moderate, that they may be observed without any very great difficulty.

Behold here the very essence of Antinomianism! Joyful news of salvation is preached to the systematically wicked; and the sinner is encouraged to go on in his evil ways, because God, having abated of his strictness, will now be found too merciful to condemn him!

This heterodox notion, like most other corruptions of Christianity, is built only upon the sandy basis of hardy assertion. But let it ever be remembered, that to assert is one thing, and to prove is another. Than the first, nothing more easy; than the second, nothing frequently more difficult. Is there any mention made in the Gospel of a moral law more easy to obey than the Law of Moses? Is there even a hint given, that God has relaxed from his pristine severity?

The doctrine of our Lord is the very reverse. Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.' Christ is here manifestly speaking of the two constituent parts of the Law; the ceremonial, and the moral. The first he accomplished in his own person, being the end of the whole scheme of type and prophecy : the second he solemnly confirms; and, instead of

Matt. v. 17-19.

lowering its claims, he takes care effectually to preclude all possibility of evasion. Except your righteousness shall EXCEED the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.'

The same doctrine is steadily maintained by his Apostle St. James. Whosoever shall keep the whole Law, and yet offend in ONE point, he is guilty of all. For he, that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill.. Now, if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the Law.*

Upon these high authorities accordingly is built the decision of our Church. No Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral.3

Now it is evident, that, if our obligation to obedience be in part relaxed, which the system at present under consideration supposes; then we are in part free from submission to the moral commandments. But the very contrary to this is declared both by our Saviour and by St. James. The moral law in short, as no one probably will venture to assert that it is totally annulled, must be either wholly obligatory or partly obligatory. From such a dilemma therefore one or other of the following conclusions must inevitably be drawn. If the moral Law be so lowered, as only to be partly obligatory; then the Author of our religion is virtually pronounced to be mistaken: but, if it

Matt. v. 20.

2 James ii. 10, 11.

3 Art. vii.