Adam nor any of his race can ever obtain life by the law of nature; because we are sinners, and so, by the law of nature are condemned without hope. Rom. ii. 20. By the deeds of the law no flesh can be justi ́ed; for by the law is the knowledge of sin. And, chap iv. ver. 15. The law worketh wrath. And thus, as the case now stands, we are under infinite obligations to perfect obedience, and are liable to an infinite punishment for the least defect: and yet, through the bad temper of our hearts, we are unable to yield any obedience, and are in a disposition to be continually treasuring up wrath against the day of wrath.

Now, I say, the supreme King of heaven and earth was not moved to entertain designs of mercy towards a sinful, guilty, undone world, from a supposition that the law of nature was too severe, or that it would have been any thing like unmercifulness to have dealt with all mankind according to that rule. For,

All that this law requires, is, that since God is infinitely amiable in himself, and has such an entire right to us, and absolute authority over us as his creatures, we therefore ought to love him with all our hearts, and be entirely devoted to him, to do his will and keep his commands, seeking his glory; and that, since our neighbours are such as we; of the same species, and under the same general circumstances, we therefore ought to love our neighbour as ourselves; both which things are, in their own nature, right, and fit, and reasonable: so that the law is holy. And all that this law threatens, in case of any transgression, is, that since our obligations are infinite, and so the least defect infinitely wrong, therefore every such defect should be punished with the everlasting pains of hell; and that in exact proportion to the several aggravations attending each transgression; which is also, in its own nature, right, and fit, and reasonable: so that the law is just. And that perfect holiness which this law requires, i. e. to love God with all our hearts, and our neighbours as ourselves, is the highest perfection our nature is capable of, and altogether suited to make us happy so that the law is good. But,

It is not severe, nor any thing like unmercifulness, to deal with mankind according to a rule, which is, in its own nature,

holy, just, and good; but rather, it must have been agreeable to the holiness, justice, and goodness of the great Governor of the world so to do. And indeed, were not this the case, it would have been fit this law should have been repealed. Mankind did not need to be redeemed from the curse of an unrighteous law; for such a law ought to be laid aside, and its curses never executed. God would have been bound in justice to have abolished an unrighteous law. There is no need of Christ or gospel-grace in the case: and so all the high commendations of the grace of God in providing a Saviour, as being rich, free, and wonderful, are groundless, and cast much reproach upon mankind, as being a guilty race, righteously condemned, when, in truth, it is no such thing. God ought to have owned that the law was wrong, and to have repealed it; and not to have proceeded as it it was very good, and mankind altogether to blame, and worthy of eternal damnation And mightily would this have pleased an apostate, proud, and guilty world; and at the same time cast infinite reproach upon God and his holy law, and shut out all the grace of the gospel.

God has therefore, in the gospel, not only supposed the law to be holy, just, and good, and mankind righteously condemned; but has taken all possible care to make it evident that he does so, and thereby to secure the honour of his law, discountenance sin, humble the sinner, and exalt and magnify his grace. Even the whole scheme of the gospel is wisely calculated to attain these ends, as we shall see hereafter. So far was God from being moved to pity mankind, from a supposition that they had, in this respect, been too severely dealt with, and so objects of pity in that sense, that, on the contrary, he most perfectly approved of the law, as holy, just, and good; and was altogether in it, that mankind deserved to be proceeded with according to it. Yea, so highly did he approve of his holy law, and so odious and ill-deserving did mankind appear in his eyes for breaking it, that their sin cried aloud for vengeance in his ears; yea, cried so loud for vengeance, that he judged it necessary that his own Son should appear in their stead and die in their room, to the end that he might be just; might act consistently with the holiness and

justice of his nature, while he showed mercy to them. Rom. iii. 9. 26. In such a light he viewed things; in such a light must we therefore view them too, or we can never truly understand our need of Christ and gospel-grace, or cordially acquiesce in the gospel-way of salvation; but rather shall be disposed to quarrel with the strictness of the law, and think ourselves abused, and imagine that God deals hardly with us. 3. Nor was the supreme Being moved to entertain designs of mercy towards mankind, from a supposition that their inability to yield perfect obedience made them the less to blame, and so the more proper objects of pity on that account. For mankind are not the less to blame for their inability; but the more unable they are, the greater is their blame; and so the more proper objects are they of the divine wrath and vengeance.

God is a most excellent and aimable Being. He infinitely deserves our highest love and esteem, and supreme delight. It is perfectly fit we should be of a disposition to say, Whom have we in heaven but thee? and there is nothing on earth we desire besides thee. Psalm lxxiii. 25. Now, not to love this God with all our hearts, must be infinitely wrong; and not to Jove him at all, must be worse still: but to be habitually contrary to him in the temper of our hearts; yea, so averse to him as that we CANNOT love him, must be, in the very highest degree, vile and sinful. And now to say we CANNOT, by way of extenuation, as though we were the less to blame for that, is intolerably God-provoking; since our CANNOT arises only from the bad temper of our hearts, and because we are not what we should be; and not at all from any unloveliness in the divine nature, or from our want of external advantages for the knowledge of God.

Put the case to thyself, O man. Were you as wise as Solomon, as holy as David, as humble as Paul, and of as loving and kind a temper as John; and had you a family of children; and were all the rules and orders of your house like yourself, and calculated to make all your children just such as you are; and did you perceive that your children neither liked you, nor your ways, nor the orders of your house; they show you much disrespect in their carriage, disregard your authori

ty, complain your rules are too strict, and daily break over all orders; at length you call them to an account; are about to convince, humble, and reform them; they plead they are not to blame, at least not so much to blame, because they CANNOT love you, they CANNOT like your ways, they CANNOT but abhor such rules and orders; those very properties, on account of which you are indeed the most excellent man in the world, these are the very things for which they dislike you, while, in the mean time, they can most heartily love their companions in vice and debauchery. And now the question is, whether their inability to love you renders them any the less to blame : or, whether it be not very provoking in them, to plead in excuse for themselves, that they cannot love you; when their cannot arises from their voluntary contrariety to all good, and love to debauchery; and not at all from any unloveliness of your person or ways; or for want of advantages to be acquainted with you, and with the beauty of your temper and conduct. The application is easy. Was it any excuse for the ill-will of the malicious Pharisees towards Christ, that they could not love him; that they could not but hate him? Did ever any man look upon a malicious, spiteful neighbour, and think him any the less to blame, for his abundant ill-carriage; for his being so exceedingly ill-natured that it was not in his heart to do otherwise? I appeal to the common sense of all mankind.

If such an inability can excuse mankind, then the devils, upon the same footing, may be excused too. And the more any of God's subjects hate him, the less will they be to blame; for the more any do really hate God, the less able will they be to love him; the more averse to his law, the less able to keep it. And, therefore, since our inability arises from such a root, the more unable we are to love God with all our bearts, and yield a perfect obedience to all his laws, the more vile, guilty, hell-deserving we are, and the more unworthy of pity. So that our moral inability and impotency, or rather obstinacy, was, in the nature of things, so far from extenuating our guilt and moving the divine pity, that it was the strongest evidence of our exceeding vileness, and, as it were, a mighty bar and great discouragement in the way of God's ever entertaining any designs of mercy towards us. It was like the

great mountains; so that nothing but infinite goodness could have ever surmounted it. And in this light must we view our selves and our inability, and become self-condemned before God, or we shall never like it that God looks upon us as he does, nor ever be able to look upon his grace in the gospel in the same light with him, nor can we ever heartily approve of and fall in with that way of salvation.

When we are under sufficient outward advantages to come to know what kind of Being God is, and yet after all, see no beauty in him, nor esteem him, it must be either because we are intolerably bad in our temper, or eise because he is not truly, and, indeed, a lovely and amiable Being. When we say we cannot love him, under a fond notion that we are hereby excused and are not to blame, we implicitly say, that we are well enough disposed, and are of a good temper, but God is such an hateful Being that we cannot love him; there is nothing in him to be loved. So that to say we CANNOT, under a notion of extenuating our guilt, casts the highest reflection upon God imaginable, and indeed is big with the blackest blasphemy. We had as good say, Owing to us that we do not love God, but to him. readily love him, if there was any thing in him for us to love; but there is not, and so we cannot; and therefore are not to blame."

"It is not

We would

To suppose, therefore, that God, in the gospel, considers us as being the less to blame for this our inability, and from thence is moved to pity us, is the very same thing in effect as to suppose that God owns himself a hateful, unlovely Being, and thinks it a great hardship that his poor creatures should be forced to love him, or be damned; and therefore repents that ever he was so severe, or ever made such a law, and is sorry for them, and will do better by them for time to come. But how horrid a thought is this! It casts the highest reflection upon God, and upon his holy law, and quite destroys all the grace of the gospel. No, no! God knew well enough how the case stood. He was conscious to his own infinite excellency, and to the infinite reasonableness of his law. He knew the hellish temper of an apostate, rebellious race; and verily he was GOD, and not man, or he would have doomed