will be; and it is the same with the Gospel." But, Sir, I conceive that the different circumstances which man may be in, does alter the nature of the law so far as it respects him. allowed, is the same in itself;

The law, it shall be but the language of

the law to man in innocence, and to man fallen, differs in this respect; to the one it prescribed a duty, which, through the infirmity of his nature he was enabled to perform; to the others, a duty which he cannot perform; therefore, whilst to the former it might in some sense have been a law of life, to the latter it must be a law of death.

You describe the law and Gospel thus: "The former says, obey and live; the latter, believe and be saved." If you mean thus to contra-distinguish the law from the Gospel, by opposing the obedience of the one to the belief of the other, I conceive your distinction to be in no sense correct, and certainly not scriptural. For the faith or the belief of the Gospel comprehends under it obedience, otherwise it is not true Christian faith. To prevent, therefore, that deception which upon so delicate a subject, has prevailed more or less in all ages of the Church, by which part of the Gospel has been taken for the whole of it, I conceive your definition should have been worded thus; the law says, "Obey and live." The Gospel, "Believe, obey, and be saved."

But you go on to say, "that obedience to the commandments of the moral law has been totally excluded from having any thing to do in the business of a sinner's pardon and acceptance."

Give me leave to ask, when and by whom was

obedience to the moral law excluded? Was it excluded by our Saviour, when he told the young man, that if he would enter into life he must keep the commandments? Was it excluded by him, when, at the conclusion of his sermon upon the mount, he said, "Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."* Was it excluded by the Apostle, when after treating at large of justification, as it were to prevent all mistake upon the subject, he concluded thus: "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid. Yea, we establish the law."t The Apostle established the law, by proving that the substance corresponded to the shadow; that in Jesus Christ all the legal types had been fulfilled, and consequently that he was the end of the law for righteousness: and as he established the typical law, by proving it to have been fulfilled in Christ; so also did he establish the moral law, (which had been restored by Christ to its spiritual meaning) by making it an essential part of the Gospel dispensation, where he says to his disciples, "In Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision," "but the keeping of the commandments of God."+

"Love to God and our neighbour (you proceed to say) are the fruits of being brought into a state of salvation through Christ alone."

They certainly are so, because these fruits are not produced but by men in that state. But though * Matt, vii. 21.

+ Rom. iii. 31.

1 Cor. vii. 19; Gal. vi. 15.

the fruits of the Spirit are the consequence of man's being brought into a state of salvation, yet they are not the necessary consequence of that important event; for if they were, then every man brought into a state of salvation would be what that state was designed to make him—a spiritual man.

But facts prove this not to be case. Therefore, by man's being brought into a state of salvation, and by his being in a state of final acceptance with God, two very different things are meant. It is to a want of proper discrimination between man's initial and final savation, that the confusion which has so frequently prevailed on this subject may be attributed. Fallen man is brought into a state of salvation by baptism. With his admission into this state, his works can have nothing to do. It is a state of salvation provided by the free grace of God, to the partaking of which nothing is required on the part of man but a profession of faith in a crucified Saviour. One of the grand privileges annexed to man's admission into this state, is the renewing of the Holy Ghost; in other words, the restoring to man that spiritual assistance by which he may be enabled to lead that holy and religious life, which can alone qualify him for admission into a better world. By this Divine assistance, fallen man has a power, according to the tenor of the tenth Article, "to do works pleasant and acceptable to God." Now as God doeth nothing in vain, it cannot be a matter of indifference, whether the object for which the renewing of the Holy Ghost was granted, be accomplished or not. It follows then, that if God has vouchsafed to man under the Gospel covenant,

a power to do works pleasant and acceptable to himself; works so performed must have something to do with a sinner's pardon and acceptance with God.

I do not say that they will be the meritorious cause of his salvation, nor indeed any cause at all, taking the word strictly as productive of a certain effect; for no works performed by man at any time, could set up a claim of right to eternal life, as the wages for service performed; whilst at the same time they may be a consideration, on account of which God will be pleased, under the Gospel covenant, to accept a fallen, repentant, and obedient sinner, for the sake of what an all-gracious Saviour has done and suffered for him. For after all that Jesus Christ has done and suffered for man, he is still"the Author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him."*

Our reformers, if I mistake not, in The Erudition of a Christian Man, published in 1543, spake still more strongly on this point; when, under the Article good works they say, "forasmuch as they be done in the faith of Christ, and by the virtue and merits of his passion their imperfectness is supplied, the merciful goodness of God accepteth them as an observation and fulfilling of his law; and they be the very service of God, and be meritorious towards the attaining of everlasting life."+

From the foregoing premises our conclusion is, that the distinction between the covenant of works and covenant of grace, between the law and the Gospel, so frequently though incautiously made,

* Heb. v. 9.

+ Vindicia, c. 6, p. 272; Hom. on good Works.

when considered with reference to eternal life, is certainly an incorrect one. We know of no cove nant or dispensation under which man has been ever placed, according to the tenor of which a claim of right to eternal life on the score of works, could be maintained. And St. Paul, with an eye to the law, says expressly, "if there had been a law given, which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law."* When, therefore, mention is made of the law giving life as the reward of obedience, the law of Moses is to be understood; and by life, the attainment only of temporal promises; for with respect to eternal life, the law could never give it. Under the first dispensation in Paradise the law could not give it, because, as it has been above observed, eternal life was originally the free gift of God, suspended on a condition suited to man in his state of innocence. Subsequent to the fall the law could not give it, because the promise had given it before; for, as the Apostle argues, had the law given it, the promise of God in Christ, made four hundred and thirty years before, must have been made of none effect. Considering, then, the Jewish dispensation as a peculiar one, designed only for a temporary purpose, and to be introductory to the accomplishment of God's general plan for the salvation of man through Jesus Christ; we have to observe, that with respect to any claim of right to eternal life, man has stood on the same footing from the beginning. To Adam, eternal life, as the gift of God, was promised on the condition of his abstinence * Gal. iii. 21. + Gal. iii, 17.