his conversion. The righteousness which he had as a Pharisee, that is, the righteousness which he had before his conversion, consisted in that which is here called the works of the law. Hence speaking of his Pharisaical righteousness, Paul expresses himself thus; "Not having mine own righteousness which is of the law." The apostle cannot mean by his own righteousness which was of the law, true holiness. It was a righteousness, although he says it was "of the law," which did not exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. Therefore the unregenerate only in the sense of the text are under the law. They only are under condemnation; they only are under the curse. To say that any are under the curse, besides unregenerate sinners, is as far from the truth, as to say, that the apostle himself was as really under the curse after his conversion, as before it; yea, as when he said; “I have fought a good fight I have finished my course, I have kept the faith," for Paul was not a sinless character, although he had kept the faith, and there was laid up for him a crown of righteousness, with which the Lord, the righteous Judge would crown him. There is, therefore, an essential difference between the character of a person, who keeps the LAW, being born of God, and the character of one who is of the "works of the law," in the sense in which the apostle uses the phrase in the text; the sense of which we have endeavoured to discover.

2. From what we have heard, we learn how to un derstand the apostle when he treats of justification by faith, without the deeds of the law.

Paul frequently speaks of the works of the law and deeds of the law, in opposition to faith; but in all such places he must always mean Pharisaical works or the works of the unregenerate. For good works or works of holiness are never put in opposition to true faith. Between such works and such a faith there are no opposite qualities. The apostle says, "that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." He cannot mean, however, that a man is justified by faith

without holiness. Without holiness, "no man shall see the Lord;" but if a man may be justified by faith without holiness, then, a man may see the Lord without holiness: for the justified shall be glorified. Therefore justification by faith without works, cannot mean justification by faith without moral goodness, or "a right spirit." When God answered the prayer of David, and purged him "with hyssop," and made him "clean;" washed. him, and made him "whiter than snow," he was then in a state of justification, in favour with God, and entitled to eternal life; for "whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified." Without that love to God therefore, which is required in the moral LAW, no flesh can be justified. As love or holiness is the essence of justifying faith, it would therefore be as inconsistent to say that a man might be justified by faith without love, as to say that a man might be justified by faith without faith. Therefore, when the apostle treats of justification by faith without works, he cannot mean justification without moral goodness: but by faith he must mean true religion, in distinction from the religion of the Jews, the religion in which he was brought up. "For," ye have heard, says he, "of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it; and profited in the Jews' religion above many mine equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the tradition of my fathers." Now, when the apostle says, that a man is justified by faith without the "deeds of the law," he means justification by true religion without any false religion; or by good works, without any dead works or dead faith. The apostle, it is granted, speaks of justification by faith without works, but he no where says, that a man is justified by faith without good works.

3. We see how to understand the apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Romans 9th chapter, 31, 32 verses. "But Israel which followed after the law of righteous

ness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law: for they stumbled at that stumbling stone." By "works of the law" in this place, it is impossible that the apostle should mean the keeping of the LAW in the true sense in which men are required to keep it; he must therefore mean the works of the Pharisee, or of the unregenerate sinner: for it is impossible that a man born of God, one who had kept the LAW in such a sense as to imply the least degree of true holiness, should stumble at that stumbling stone, meaning Jesus Christ. For he who loves God the Father, can never stumble into perdition over the Son of the Father. If the children of Israel had had a proper regard for the LAW of God, the love of God being shed abroad in their hearts, they would no more have stumbled at that stumblingstone, than the apostle himself would have stumbled at it, at the very time in which he was writing to the Romans on the important and interesting subject of justification Why did not Puul stumble at that stumbling-stone? Because he had that love of God in his heart, required in the moral LAW. It was the nature of the Jews' religion; and it is the nature of the religion of all the unregenerate, to reject Jesus Christ. That religion which consists in weaving the spider's web, has no affinity with the religion of Jesus. But a man who loves God, having a proper regard for the DIVINE LAW, will not, cannot stumble at that stumbling stone; that is, he cannot reject Jesus Christ, for it is the nature of that love required in the moral LAW cordially to embrace him. They who are taught of God, having his LAW in their hearts, will come to Christ A person no sooner becomes a friend to the LAW of God, than he becomes a friend to the Son of God.

4. In treating on a certain subject, a late respectable Author brings into view Gal. iii, 10, and expresses his sentiments upon it "Respecting the written moral law, it abounds," saith he, "with pains and penalties,

and those too of a very awful nature; threatening death, even eternal destruction, for every transgression. It curses every one who continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. It makes no provision for pardon, and gives not the least hope of mercy, in any case, or on any condition whatever; but most explicitly and unconditionally condemns every transgressor, without any exception, to everlasting misery. That this is the unequivocal language of the law, it is presumed no one will deny. This is the law which expresses the true character of God: which is a transcript of his essential moral perfections. This is a law which expresses the mind and will of God, the very feelings of his heart."

On the ideas expressed in this quotation our subject leads to a few remarks.

1. I should suppose, that, from the sentiment herein expressed, the author made no distinction between the law given to Adam in Paradise, and the MORAL LAW given to Moses on the mount. It is readily granted that the law to Adam made no provision for pardon, nor gave the least hope of mercy, in any case, or on any condition whatever. But is not the mind and will of God as expressed in the "written moral LAW" directly contrary to this? Is it not the will of God, as there expressed, to shew mercy to thousands of them that love him? And does God, in the Gospel, express his mind to shew mercy on lower terms, or on terms less rigid? Is it "the mind and will of God, the very feelings of his heart," without the least hope of mercy on any condition whatever, to condemn every transgressor to endless misery? This surely cannot be the mind and will of God, as expressed in the moral LAW; for there he promises mercy to thousands of them that love him, and keep his commandments. And even the Gospel will save no man without obedience.

2. Some sinners of mankind do obtain pardon and find mercy, are delivered from everlasting misery, and

saved with an everlasting salvation. This being the case, I ask from what quarter do these blessings come? If it be the mind and will of God, the very feelings of his heart, to doom sinners for every transgression to eternal destruction? how is it possible for any person to be saved? It will no doubt be said, in reply, that salvation is to be found in the Gospel, and not in the LAW. I grant that Christ is the only foundation of salvation. "Other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." But the foundation of mercy and salvation is not the question under consideration. The question is what is the condition of salvation? And if the moral LAW affords no condition whatever, but dooms all men, and that for every transgression, to eternal death; what then is the condition of salvation? and what is necessary in order to pardon? It is said that the LAW makes no provision for pardon, and it is also said that the mind. and will of God is expressed in his LAW: Is it the mind and will of God, then, that there should be no provision made for pardon, or the least hope of mercy, on any condition whatever? Will the objector say that the condition of pardon, as well as the foundation of salvation, is found in Christ? will the righteousness of Christ avail us any thing if we do not keep the moral LAW?

Besides; has Christ made provision for pardon contrary to the mind and will of God, contrary to the very feelings of his heart? According to this it appears to me, that the "law and gospel speak a different language, and exhibit characters exceedingly diverse, one from the other."

Perhaps it will be said, that had there been no atone'ment for sin, or had not Christ "redeemed us from the curse of the LAW, being made a curse for us," there could have been no salvation for any man; and of course all the posterity of Adam must have perished forever. This I acknowledge. But does it follow from this, that the written moral LAW makes no provision