Therefore if God have effected any volition in his own mind, that volition has had its beginning in time, and therefore implies a change in God.

Neither, for reasons already given can any creature be the efficient cause of volitions in himself. Therefore there is no such thing in nature, as an intelligent mind efficiently causing volitions in itself. This then cannot be the ground of reward or punishment.

The true ground of these, seems to be this, that a rational voluntary action tends to good, or to evil. When a man in the exercise of his reason, voluntarily and designedly performs an action which tends in its nature to the general good, or to good on the whole, and with a design to do good, he is rewardable. And on the other hand, when in the exercise of his reason he voluntarily performs an action which tends, and which he knows, or might know tends to the general detriment, or to evil on the whole, he is punishable. And therefore a man in the exercise of his reason, acting voluntarily is accountable for his conduct; and this is all that is necessary to accountableness. It is right and reasonable, that such a man should be rewarded or punished as his conduct may be, because all the good ends of reward and punishment may be obtained in such a case. One end of reward in many cases is to encourage the man rewarded to proceed in good conduct. This end may be obtained by rewarding the man I have described. Being under the government of motives, reward will naturally operate as a motive, and persuade him to continue and proceed in well doing. Another end is to encourage others to do well; and reward in the instance now described, manifestly has a tendency to this. The ends of punishing are correspondent to those of rewarding, viz. to restrain the subject of the punishment, or others from evil conduct. And I need not observe that punishment in the case before described naturally subserves both these ends. Therefore there is no foundation to say that unless a man be the efficient cause of his own volitions, there is no reason or propriety, in either rewarding or punishing him.

Having now finished what I proposed from this text, I shall conclude with some inferences.

1. Hence we learn the extent of our dependence on God. Some suppose we are dependent for our creation and for our preservation, but not for our common actions; that God upholds our being and our faculties, but that we exercise these faculties of ourselves, without any other divine influence than what is implied in his upholding us. But this seems to be contradicted by the text, as well as by all that has come up to our view in con

sidering the doctrine taught by it. Our text and its doctrine teach us, that we are dependent on a divine influence for every good action, external or internal, as well as for the preservation of our faculties. Therefore sinners are dependent on God to renew and sanctify their hearts; and saints are dependent on him, to uphold, strengthen and edify them. Nor can they any more make progress in the christian life without the influence of God, than they can first begin this life. To God, therefore, we must all look for grace to help in every time of need.

2. We see that it is no ground of wonder, that the sacred scriptures teach the doctrine of the new birth; that they declare in peremptory terms, "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of heaven;" and "except we be converted, and become as little children, we cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

3. Hence we see how foolish, and stupid they are, who live at ease without having experienced the new birth. To do this is to be at ease in a state of the most imminent danger, exposed at any moment to the endless wrath of God.

4. Hence we infer, that if any man be not a real christian it is wholly his own fuult, and that he is entirely and solely to be blamed for it. If we be free and accountable creatures, if we be justly blamable for all those voluntary actions, both external and internal which we perform in the possession and exercise of our reason, and which tend not to the general good; then it is wholly a man's own fault, that he lives in alienation from God, and in impenitence and unbelief. And although many, on the ground of their inability to repent and believe, may, in their own apprehensions, excuse themselves for living in this state, yet in reality they are utterly inexcusable; as inexcusable as the drunkard in his intemperance; as the indolent in his idleness; or as the malicious in his revenge.

Therefore let the wicked, the unconverted, the unregenerate, in view of this their inexcusable sinfulness, humble themselves before God in deep abasement; let them repent of this their wickedness, and fly to the blood of the atonement, and for the sake of that pray God that all the wicked thoughts and affections of their hearts, and the wicked fruits thereof in their lives may be forgiven them.

5. It is solely the fault of christians that they make so little proficiency in the christian life. It is common for christians to complain that they have so little grace in exercise, that they are so dead, dull and lifeless, and that they have so little evidence from sanctification, of their christian character and privileges.

Of these things they often complain, not in the humble strains of real repentance, but sometimes with a degree of peevishness, and oftener in a way of self-justification, pleading that they have not the influences of the spirit and a sufficiency of the grace of God, as an apology for their unfruitfulness. But if our doctrine be true, all this is utterly wrong. It is adding sin to sin. Therefore instead of this vain self-justification, and instead of this complaining of God for withholding his grace and spirit, let us sincerely confess our own fault to God, be deeply humbled under a sense of it, and forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forth to those which are before, let us press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Let us be faithful unto death, and then we shall receive a crown of life.

SERMON XXIII.

THE LAW NOT MADE VOID THROUGH FAITH.*

ROMANS 3: 31.-Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid : yea we establish the law.

SINCE God created man he has been pleased to treat with him in two several ways, which are called covenants. These covenants are distinguished according to their order, as the first and the second covenant, or the old covenant and the new; according to their different natures, as the covenant of works and the covenant of grace; and by the apostle in the context as the law of works and law of faith; or, as in our text itself, they are denoted simply by the words "law" and "faith."

In each of these ways of treating with man, God has proposed certain terms or conditions, upon the fulfilment of which on man's part, he might expect to secure the divine favor both here and hereafter. In the former of these covenants or ways of God's treating with man, the terms were perfect obedience to the divine law. He that should continue in all things written in the book of the law to do them, should live in them; but whosoever should fail in any the least of these, should be accursed. The terms of the other covenant are very different. For now God does not require a perfect obedience as the ground of our acceptance with him. Perfect obedience, perfect conformity to the law of God is indeed, now, as ever, the duty of all men. It is as much our duty now under the second covenant to observe the law perfectly as a rule of life, as ever it was under the first covenant; and hence the command of our Lord: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your father which is in heaven is perfect." Yet notwithstanding it is thus our absolute duty to keep the whole law as a rule of life, we are not required to keep it as a way of securing God's favor, and obtaining final salvation. All that God requires of us now, in order to secure his friendship and our own safety, is that we repent of our sins, and believe and accept of the Lord Jesus Christ as our mediator and Savior. These are the two ways of accept

* First preached in 1768.

ance and justification in the sight of God, and these are the different terms of each.

Now that we, and all men since the fall are justified and accepted on the last of these footings, viz. of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and not on the former one of the law and perfect obedience to it, is what the apostle abundantly asserts and proves in the former part of this epistle. Thus in the 20th verse of the context he says, "Therefore by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight;" and again in the 28th verse, "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." This being the case then, that we are not accepted, and justified on the footing of the law or by the deeds of the law, but entirely on the footing of faith in a redeemer, the question naturally arises whether, upon this plan of justification by faith, the law was not set aside and made void, of none effect? This question the apostle starts in our text: "Do we then make void the law through faith?" And the answer to it also we have in the same text: "God forbid: yea we establish the law."

To make void the law, as the phrase is here used, means to set it aside and to have no regard to it, to treat it as being repealed, and thus as a mere dead letter. For as the apostle had abundantly declared that we are not justified by the works of law, but by faith without these works, it might naturally seem to follow that the law was now made void, and that no regard was to be had to it, any more than to any other dead letter. But this consequence he most directly denies and rejects. We by no means, says he, make void the law through faith; so far from this is the fact, that on the other hand we establish it. By making void the law through faith he means evidently, as already hinted, making it void by this new plan of justification by faith in Christ, and not barely by the simple act of faith. He here uses the word faith in opposition to the law. And as by "the law" he means the moral law which was the way of acceptance and justification under the first covenant; so by "faith" he intends not merely the simple act of believing, but in general the way and method of justification and salvation under the second

covenant.

Let us then inquire wherein it appears, that by this new way of acceptance and justification by faith, the law is indeed not nullified and set aside, but is fully kept up and sustained in its true spirit and import, and not only so, but is even more firmly established than if this new method of justification had never been adopted. In attempting this, two points are before us: 1. To inquire wherein it appears that in the gospel mode of justification