It pre

This law is limited in its requirements to the capacities of men. sents not only a scale of obligation which is perfectly equitable, but it asks for no obedience which is not within the reach of man's capacity. There is an impression on the minds of the great mass of men, which has been cherished from childhood, that what God has required in his law is as much beyond their powers as to see a spirit or create a world. This inability is pleaded as an excuse for their neglect of duty and continuance in the road to death. It is doubtful whether among all the apologies that depravity has invented there is one to which so many resort, and on which they depend with so much confidence for justification as this. It is usually the first and the last weapon of defence that is wrested from the hands of the sinner when he submits to the terms of life. Now there is a depravity in this plea, aside from the charge of injustice which it fixes upon the Lawgiver, which is not a little surprising. Were nothing said on the subject of man's capacity in the terms of the law, we might safely infer that if God be holy and just, he will not require impossibilities. But since the subject is so explicitly stated in the terms of the law, since our obligation is so expressly limited to our powers, this plea must be seen to contain a compound of whatever is daring and hateful in the sight of God. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength." Now the plea that we are unable to obey this command will be seen at once to involve a contradiction. It is to contend that we are unable to do what we can. If sinners have no ability to love God, they are under no obligations to do it according to the terms of the law. If by the apostacy of Adam his posterity have lost their power to obey, the same inference must follow beyond a possibility of evasion. The law is an exhibition of principles which the reason and common sense of men cannot but see are equitable and just. Taking the decalogue as containing the substance of all that God has revealed to govern the conduct of men, and as designed to exhibit distinctly the moral character of his government, it is plain that we may with the same plausibility contend that the overtures of the gospel change the nature of equity and justice, as that they affect the obligations of the law.

III. The gospel would cease to be an exhibition of mercy or grace if the obligations of the law are not perpetual. It is a dictate of common sense, that every law for the government of moral beings that has obligations has penaltics also, and that they are inseparably connected. If we are no longer under obligations to do what the law requires, it has no longer a penalty against us, and of course there can be no mercy in shielding us from its demands. If it were once our duty to love God, it was then mercy to pardon, on our repentance, our neglect of it; but if we are not now justly deserving of punishment for neglecting it, for God to withhold punishment is no mercy. It is no mercy to be saved from what we do not justly deserve. If the requirements of the law are not at this moment obligatory on the spirits of the just made perfect in heaven, there is no grace in their salvation. The demands of the law previous to the death of Christ, in the order of nature, were either just or unjust. If they were just, no compassion on the part of God can lessen or annihilate them. If they were unjust, to violate them was no guilt, and to pardon such violations no mercy. It must be evident

that the existence of mercy or grace is dependent on the perpetuity of the obligations of the law.

IV. It would be manifestly unjust for God to release men from the obligations of his law. According to the views of some, it would be right for God to dispose of his law in any way, even to annihilate its obligations. They suppose that no complaint could be made, because it is his law. He has "a right to do what he will with his own."

To see the absurdity of these views, let it be asked whether it would be just for a parent to release his children from all obligations to love and respect him if it were within his power? In what way could mankind receive a greater injury than to be released from all obligation to love God and each other? Suppose that by a voice from heaven God should proclaim liberty to men to profane his name and his holy Sabbath, and despise every means by which his fear and love are promoted? Suppose he should give them license to treat the life, liberty, and rights of every being but themselves with perfect disregard? Such would be the consequences were the obligations of the law annihilated: and there are men so blind and inconsiderate as to deem such a liberty desirable. But there is no way within the limits of finite conception in which he would be doing his own kingdom greater injustice. Were he infinitely malevolent, and did he wish to pour out all his wrath on the creatures he had made; did he look forward and adopt measures with a view to their future and irremediable wretchedness, we cannot conceive of any better adapted to his purpose. The picture is still worse, and the supposition still more painful, if we suppose all this has been done by the sufferings and death of Christ. Nothing can be more evident than that men know not what they say, when they affirm that the obligations of the law are lowered or absolved by the gospel.

V. We cannot receive the Lord Jesus Christ with correct views unless we assent to the estimate that God has placed upon his own law. To embrace the gospel or believe on Christ does not consist in being willing to be saved by him from deserved punishment without regard to his character or government. The apostle in the context says, that the object for which Christ was set forth to be a propitiation was, "that he might declare the righteousness of God, so that God might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth." Now it is plain that faith must sustain what God has said concerning "his righteousness," or it would not make it just for him to justify the believing sinner. In what way could God have shown a higher regard for his righteousness or his law than in consenting to such a sacrifice as the death of his Son, rather than that its demands should not be sustained? A reference to transactions which are common among men will show the bearing that faith has to make it just for God to justify the sinner. When a man is arrested for some flagrant violation of law and delivered into the hands of justice, do we not learn the estimation in which the law is held by the extent of the punishment inflicted. If the sentence should be death, or imprisonment for life, the most ignorant could understand that the law which was broken was considered essential to the existence and peace of the government. Viewing the subject in this light, we may see with clearness the estimate that God has placed upon his law. It is true that in relation to the sufferings of Christ, it was not

a sentence inflicted upon the criminal, but upon one who had voluntarily taken his place; and we are sure that in order to make the offence in the criminal pardonable, the evil inflicted on the substitute would not be greater than the criminal deserved. In the case above stated, if the sentence were a heavy fine, and if while the criminal is held for security, a friend is kind enough on certain conditions to pay the debt and secure his discharge, a willingness in the criminal to accept of the interference would be an unequivocal acceptance of the conditions. If his friend alleges openly that he considers the decision of the court just and righteous, and with the understanding that the criminal shall cheerfully acknowledge it to be such, he will interfere, it is plain if he accepts of the kindness of his friend, he not only admits the fine to be just, but he admits the law to be as important as the penalty would indicate. Equally plain is it that if we accept of the atonement of Christ, we admit the infinite value of the law that his sufferings and death would intimate. Now what could be more absurd than for this criminal, when he had accepted the interference of his friend, and the fine had been paid, to contend that he was now at liberty to violate that law as often as he pleased? Could he infer that the law or its obligations were annihilated merely because the government had once shown how highly it was valued? Still more absurd would it have been, if the government had made his acceptance of the terms stated by his friend a condition of his release, for him to contend that he might now repeat his crime with impunity. He had, in the most definite manner possible, admitted the importance of the law. It is similar with us if we exercise evangelical faith in Christ. By that act we admit the law to be as important and sin to be as deserving of punishment as the offering of Christ would show. Now when we have made this concession, can we be so absurd as to say in the same breath that the law is no longer obligatory?

VI. Another argument in support of our proposition may be drawn from the fact, that from the uniform usage of the Holy Spirit, sinners are not admitted to feel that they are at peace with God till they can cordially justify the obligations and penalties of the law. The scribe that came to our Savior with the question, "Which is the first commandment of all?" who so readily acceded to the views given of the law, was told by the Savior, "when he saw that he answered discreetly," "Thou art not far from the kingdom of God." It would seem, from this declaration, that a cordial and unreserved admission of the obligations and penalties of the law could flow only from the spirit and temper of that kingdom. Not only so, but it is obvious from the nature of things that where such a spirit or temper finds a welcome reception, that heart is fitted for the worship and enjoyment of God in that purer and holier world. In perfect accordance with this have been the experience and observation of every man who has watched the operation of the Spirit. They have seen men at the commencement of that work manifesting the bitterest opposition to the law, openly alleging that a being of equity and justice could not insist upon such claims; and they have invariably found that such men obtained no satisfactory and lasting peace till they could bow submissively and cheerfully to the extent of its demands. It is admitted that sinners, when partially alarmed, and often before they come to the point of justifying the law, from wrong instruction or the deception of their own hearts, embrace a hope. For a while they may rejoice exceedingly in view of

the mercy of God; but their piety infallibly proves like the "morning cloud and the early dew." As they are never slain by the law, so they were never made alive by Jesus Christ. This is doubtless one important reason why the effects of some revivals are temporary and unsatisfactory. The law is not presented with sufficient clearness and faithfulness; and sinners, although they may be alarmed and convinced of their danger, are not convicted of their guilt. But where the mind is brought, through the influences of the Spirit, to such a sense of guilt that it feels, and cheerfully and cordially admits, the sentence of the law to be just, it yields the contest, and receives a peace which the world can neither give nor take away. When sinners are brought to this point, however severe their convictions have been, the contest is ended. By a usage that is uniform of this kind, the great Jehovah lets his creatures know that he is determined to maintain the spirit of his law. And it must be evident, upon a moment's reflection, that he can do no less, so long as he is determined to defend the honor of his character and government.

In view of this subject we see,

1. The importance of ascertaining what is the penalty of the law. If the gospel supports the entire demands of the law by declaring the righteousness of God, and if faith be indispensable to justification, to all the impenitent and unbelieving this inquiry becomes one of fearful import. To evade the discussion because it fills us with painful forebodings is to betray our own immortal interests. "He that believeth not is condemned already." The question before us refers to nothing less than the extent of this condemnation. What then are the demands of justice or the law of God against impenitent and unbelieving sinners? In the answer to this question, reason and revelation perfectly agree. The train of thought by which we shall be led to a view of the testimony of both is plain and brief. It is a principle universally admitted, that the penalty of justice for the violation of a law is in exact proportion to its importance; and that the importance of a law is determined by the importance of the interests it is designed to secure. It is on this principle that the penalty of some laws is capital punishment, or imprisonment for life, while that of others is only a moderate fine. If some friend of yours had been barbarously murdered, and the jury had found the evidence against the murderer clear and decisive, and there was laid upon him a sentence only of an hour's imprisonment, would you not be shocked at the absurdity and injustice of such a sentence? Who would not see that if the violations of laws for the security of life were to be treated in this manner none would be safe? Who would not escape from such a government? Who would wish to live where his life would be estimated at no higher value? On the other hand; suppose your friend, by some indiscretion, had injured the property of his neighbor to a small amount, and the jury on his trial had decided that he should be imprisoned for life-under such a valuation of law you would consider yourself equally unsafe. Is not the rule by which the penalty of laws is to be determined, from these remarks, sufficiently plain? The penalty in order to be just, from the value of things, must be in proportion to the importance of the law. Now let us look for a moment at the importance of the law of God. It supports the broad principle that every being has rights according to his worth in the scale of existence. On this principle it requires us to love God with all our heart, and our neighbor as ourselves. Suppose this law should be brought into contempt throughout the empire of God (as

What

this is the direct tendency of every sin), what would be the effects? would be the consequences were all its obligations annihilated? All holiness, justice, and equity, and of course all peace and happiness, would be blotted from existence. The character of God would be covered with an indelible stain, and his government would sink under everlasting disgrace. If the principles on which his government and his happiness are founded were annihilated, or if God had not power to maintain his law and his government, nothing could be safe in families, communities, or nations. There would be one unmingled scene of misrule and wretchedness over the whole field of creation, and the powers of darkness would shout one long and horrible note of triumph. Now what penalty will be in proportion to the importance of this law? Every violation of the law may be charged with the destruction of the principles of equity and holiness, and the government of God. The sinner that refuses to love God says to the universe by his example, that the command of God is unjust, that selfishness and neglect of God ought to prevail in the bosom of every moral being. It is nothing to his praise that this spirit is not universal, Now what penalty can we suppose sufficient to express the hatred of God towards such sin? Is it natural death? This, according to the opinion of many, is the penalty of the law. But is this an evil to be compared with the ruin of the law? Others suppose that the curse of the law is spiritual death, by which they mean to be dead in sin. This, aside from its consequences, is the sinner's crime; and we may as well suppose that cause and effect are the same, as that the sinner's crime and his punishment are the same. Spiritual death, aside from its consequences, is that in which his spirit of enmity delights. And is it rational to think that the resentment of the great Jehovah towards the violation of his law may be shown without displeasing the sinner? Others imagine that the penalty of the law is a limited period of punishment in hell. But what period can be named which, as an evil, will bear any comparison with the ruin of the law? Take the longest period supposed by these men to be intended by the phrases "ages of ages," or "everlasting," and what is it when compared with the evil at which sin aims? It is far less, and the punishment would be more disproportioned to the crime than the sentence of an hour's imprisonment for wilful murder. If the sinner were to decide upon this question with himself out of view-if he were to look at the equity and importance of the law, and his own case were not concerned in the decision, he would say, without hesitation, that for the violations of it, nothing short of endless death would be an adequate expression of divine disapprobation.

Our next inquiry is for the testimony of Scripture; for after all our reasonings, every question of this kind must be referred to the Bible. The Law giver is manifestly better acquainted with the importance of his law, and the penalties which are requisite to guard it, than his creatures; and a reference to the Scriptures will show us that he has not been backward in giving his decision. The proper course for us is to endeavor to ascertain his decision, as the views of criminals are of little weight in deciding their own characters or desert of punishment. It would seem that the Scriptures are sufficiently explicit on this subject. We may obtain an answer to the question "The wages of sin is death."

before us in few words. In order to show what kind of death is intended, it is placed in direct opposition to everlasting life" but the gift of God is eternal life." I am aware that there