hath abounded, there grace has much more abounded*. Say not, (6 my sins are so great, "that the blessing can never be designed for "me." Shall the beggar urge his poverty as a reason why he should not be relieved? Shall he say, "when I am less in want, then I shall "be a fitter object of your bounty?" The sick did not desist from applying to Jesus for a cure, till by other means they had checked the progress, or had abated the violence of their disorders. The prodigal did not forbear from returning to his father, till he had first qualified himself for appearing before him in a more becoming and suitable condition. Had they acted on this principle, the diseased would have remained without a cure. The prodigal would have miserably perished. Follow these examples. Apply without delay to your spiritual Physician. Have mercy on us, thou Son of David. He has grace and power to heal your guilty soul. His blood cleanseth from all sin. Arise, and go to your heavenly Father. Say unto him, Father I have sinned against heaven and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy son. He will run to meet you. He will stop your self-reproaches with tokens of his mercy. He will forgive you freely. He will put on you the best robe,

* Rom. v. 20.

the robe of righteousness. He will invest you with all the privileges of a son. He will save, He will rejoice over you with joy; He will rest in his love; He will joy over you with singing. For this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.

SERMON III.

THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ONLY, VINDICATED FROM THE CHARGE OF ENCOURAGING LICENTIOUSNESS.

ROMANS, III, 31.

Do we then make void the Law through Faith? God forbid! Yea, we establish the Law.

IN a former discourse, I explained that

method which infinite wisdom has revealed for the Justification of a sinner. On the present occasion, I purpose to direct our attention to the practical effects of this leading doctrine of the Gospel.

So early as the days of the apostle, we find from the text, that there were persons, who represented this doctrine as unfavourable to the interests of morality. They objected to the preachers of Justification by faith only, that they made void the law. This charge the apostle most strenuously denies. He solemnly

protests against any such inference as deducible from his doctrine; and contends that it furnishes a conclusion of a very opposite tendency. Do we make void the law through faith? God forbid! Yea, we establish the law.

In the subsequent ages of the church, objections of a similar nature have repeatedly been urged against the doctrine in question. And though their futility has been repeatedly exposed, yet even in the present times they are not seldom advanced with an air of confident assurance, as if they had never been advanced before, or were incapable of being refuted. It is presumed, then, that a particular discussion of this point will prove neither an unseasonable nor an unprofitable employment. Accordingly I shall consider,

I. The objection, that faith makes void the

law.

II. The assertion, that faith establishes the law.

I. It is objected to the doctrine of Justification by faith only, that it makes void the law; that it renders the moral law useless and nugatory; and thus eventually tends to introduce and encourage licentiousness and sin. The charge is of a most serious nature; and, if substantiated, must doubtless prove an insuperable bar to the admission of the doctrine: for it would prove that the doctrine could not be

the doctrine of Scripture. But it is contended, on the other hand, that no such objection can reasonably be urged; that faith does not make void the law. Let the examination of this question obtain that dispassionate attention, to which from its great importance it is entitled.

The moral law is that rule to which we are obliged to conform. This obligation arises from our relation to God, as rational creatures. Subjects of his universal empire, we are bound to obey, according to our capacities, and the end of our being, the law of that universal empire. From this obligation, no lapse of time, no change of place or of circumstances, can set us free. It is an obligation founded on the nature of things, which nothing ever can dissolve. Should a doctrine then, professing to be from God, tend, in its legitimate consequences, to warrant an inference that any obligation of this kind had not hitherto existed, or might hereafter in any proportion be relaxed; such a tendency would in itself disprove the pretensions of the doctrine to divine authority, and would constitute sufficient grounds for rejecting it as false and spurious; as an invention of man, an erroneous deduction from the word of God. But such is not the tendency of the doctrine in question. No inference of this nature can be fairly drawn