are justified, according to their scheme; for still, according to them, it may be said, in the same manner, of the precepts of the gospel, he that doth these things, shall live in them : The difference lies only in the things to be done, but not at all in that, that the doing of them is not the condition of living in them, just in the one case, as in the other. The words "He that doth them, shall live in them," will serve just as well for a description of the latter as the former. By the apostle's saying, the righteousness of the law is described thus, he that doth these things shall live in them; but the righteousness of faith saith thus, plainly intimates that the righteousness of faith saith otherwise, and in an opposite manner. But besides, if these words cited from Moses, are actually said by him of the moral law as well as ceremonial, as it is most evident they are, it renders it still more absurd to suppose them mentioned by the apostle, as the very note of distinction between justification by a ceremonial obedience, and a moral and sincere obedience, as the Arminians must suppose.

Thus I have spoken to a second argument, to prove that we are not justified by any manner of virtue or goodness of our own, viz. that to suppose otherwise, is contrary to the doctrine that is directly urged, and abundantly insisted on, by the Apostle Paul in his epistles.

I now proceed to a

Third Argument, viz. That to suppose that we are justified by our own sincere obedience, or any of our own virtue or goodness, derogates from gospel grace.

That scheme of justification that manifestly takes from, or diminishes the grace of God, is undoubtedly to be rejected; for it is the declared design of God in the gospel, to exalt the freedom and riches of his grace, in that method of justification of sinners, and way of admitting them to his favor, and the blessed fruits of it, which it declares. The scripture teaches, that the way of justification that is appointed in the gospel covenant, is appointed as it is, for that end, that free grace might be expressed and glorified? Rom. iv. 16..... "Therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace." The exercising and magnifying the free grace of God in the gospel

contrivance for the justification and salvation of sinners, is evidently the chief design of it; and this freedom and riches of the grace of the gospel is every where spoken of in Scripture as the chief glory of it. Therefore that doctrine that derogates from the free grace of God in justifying sinners, as it is most opposite to God's design, so it must be exceedingly offensive to him.

Those that maintain, that we are justified by our own sincere obedience, do pretend that their scheme does not diminish the grace of the gospel; for they say, that the grace of God is wonderfully manifested in appointing such a way and method of salvation, by sincere obedience in assisting us to perform such an obedience, and in accepting our imperfect obedience instead of perfect.

Let us therefore examine that matter, whether their scheme, of a man's being justified by his own virtue and sincere obedience, does derogate from the grace of God or no ; or whether free grace is not more exalted, in supposing as we do, that we are justified without any manner of goodness of our own. In order to this, I will lay down this selfevident

Proposition, That "whatsoever that be by which the abundant benevolence of the giver is expressed, and gratitude in the receiver is obliged, that magnifies free grace." This I suppose none will ever controvert or dispute.

And it is not much less evident, that it doth both shew a more abundant benevolence in the giver when he shews kindness without goodness or excellency in the object, to move him to it; and that it enhances the obligation to gratitude in the receiver.

1. It shews a more abundant goodness in the giver, when he shews kindness without any excellency in our persons or actions that would move the giver to love and beneficence. For it certainly shews the more abundant and overflowing goodness, or disposition to communicate good, by how much the less loveliness or excellency there is to entice beneficence: The less there is in the receiver to draw good will and kindness, it argues the more of the principle of good will and kindness in the giver; for one that has but a little of a

principle of love and benevolence, may be drawn to do good and to shew kindness, when there is a great deal to draw him, or when there is much excellency and loveliness in the object to move good will; when he whose goodness and benevolence is more abundant, will shew kindness where there is less to draw it forth; for he does not so much need to have it drawn from without, he has enough of the principle, within, to move him of itself. Where there is most of the principle, there it is most sufficient for itself, and stands in deast need of something without to excite it: For certainly a more abundant goodness more easily flows forth with less to impel or draw it, than where there is less; or, which is the same thing, the more any one is disposed of himself, the less he needs from without himself, to put him upon it, or stir him up to it. And therefore his kindness appears the more exceeding great when it is bestowed without any excellency or loveliness in the receiver, or when the receiver is respected in the gift, as wholly without excellency: And much more still when the benevolence of the giver not only finds nothing in the receiver to draw it, but a great deal of hatefulness to repelit: The abundance of goodness is then manifested, not only in flowing forth without any thing extrinsic to put it forward, but in overcoming great repulsion in the object. And then does kindness and love appear most triumphant, and wonderfully great, when the receiver is respected in the gift, as not only wholly without all excellence or beauty to attract it, but altogether, yea, infinitely vile and

hateful.

2. It is apparent also that it enhances the obligation to gratitude in the receiver. This is agreeable to the common sense of mankind, that the less worthy or excellent the object of benevolence, or the receiver of kindness, is, the more he is obliged, and the greater gratitude is due. He therefore is most of all obliged, that receives kindness without any goodness or excellency in himself, but with a total and universal hatefulness. And as it is agreeable to the common sense of mankind, so it is agreeable to the word of God. How often does God in the scripture insist on this argument with men, to move them to love him, and to acknowledge his kindness ?

How much does he insist on this as an obligation to gratitude, that they are so sinful and undeserving, and ill deserving ?

Therefore it certainly follows, that that doctrine that teaches, that God, when he justifies a man, and shews him that great kindness, as to give him a right to eternal life, does not do it for any obedience, or any manner of goodness of his; but that justification respects a man as ungodly, and wholly without any manner of virtue, beauty or excellency. I say, this doctrine does certainly more exalt the free grace of God in justification, and man's obligation to gratitude to him for such a favor, than the contrary doctrine, viz. That God, in shewing this kindness to man, respects him as sincerely obedient and virtuous, and as having something in him that is truly excellent, and lovely, and acceptable in his sight, and that this goodness or excellency of man is the very fundamental condition of the bestowment of that kindness on him, or of the distinguishing him from others by that benefit. But I hasten

to a

Fourth argument for the truth of the doctrine, "That to suppose that a man is justified by his own virtue or obedience, derogates from the honor of the Mediator, and ascribes that to man's virtue that belongs only to the righteousness of Christ:"

It puts man in Christ's stead, and makes him his own Saviour, in a respect in which Christ only is the Saviour: And so it is a doctrine contrary to the nature and design of the gospel, which is to abase man, and to ascribe all the glory of our salvation to Christ the Redeemer. It is inconsistent with the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness, which is a gospel doctrine. Here I would,

1. Explain what we mean by the imputation of Christ's righteousness.

2. Prove the thing intended by it to be true.

3. Shew that this doctrine is utterly inconsistent with the doctrine of our being justified by our own virtue or sincere obedience.

First, I would explain what we mean by the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Sometimes the expression is taken by our divines in a larger sense, for the imputation of all that VOL. VIL

H

principle of love and benevolence, may be drawn to do good and to shew kindness, when there is a great deal to draw him, or when there is much excellency and loveliness in the object to move good will; when he whose goodness and benevolence is more abundant, will shew kindness where there is less to draw it forth; for he does not so much need to have it drawn from without, he has enough of the principle, within, to move him of itself. Where there is most of the principle, there it is most sufficient for itself, and stands in least need of something without to excite it: For certainly a more abundant goodness more easily flows forth with less to impel or draw it, than where there is less; or, which is the same thing, the more any one is disposed of himself, the less he needs from without himself, to put him upon it, or stir him up to it. And therefore his kindness appears the more exceeding great when it is bestowed without any excellency or loveliness in the receiver, or when the receiver is respected in the gift, as wholly without excellency: And much more still when the benevolence of the giver not only finds nothing in the receiver to draw it, but a great deal of hatefulness to repelit: The abundance of goodness is then manifested, not only in flowing forth without any thing extrinsic to put it forward, but in overcoming great repulsion in the object. And then does kindness and love appear most triumphant, and wonderfully great, when the receiver is respected in the gift, as not only wholly without all excellence or beauty to attract it, but altogether, yea, infinitely vile and hateful.

2. It is apparent also that it enhances the obligation to gratitude in the receiver. This is agreeable to the common sense of mankind, that the less worthy or excellent the object of benevolence, or the receiver of kindness, is, the more he is obliged, and the greater gratitude is due. He therefore is most of all obliged, that receives kindness without any goodness or excellency in himself, but with a total and universal hatefulness. And as it is agreeable to the common sense of mankind, so it is agreeable to the word of God. How often does God in the scripture insist on this argument with men, to move them to love him, and to acknowledge his kindness?