1. Man is dependant, in all his volitions, and moves by neceffity.

in

2. The Almighty has a good intention every volition of man.

Objection first. If man moves by noceffity, why do the fcriptures abound with exhortations and admonitions to diffuade from fin, and fo many inducements to perfuade to holinefs and virtue? And why are there requirements in the law, to which man is under the neceffity of going contrary?

Objection 2d. If God has a good intention in every action or volition of man, why is it faid, in the fcriptures, that he is grieved and provoked with us? &c.

The propofition, against which the first objection ftands, anfwers the objection, in all its parts. It was in the fyftem of divine wisdom, that man fhould experience a consciousness of fin and guilt, without which the fubject of my inquiry could never have exifted. If fin and guilt had never beeen introduced into our fyftem, the plan of grace, by atonement, could never have been exhibited. Sin and guilt could never have exifted, providing there had been no prohibition communi-cated to the intelligent mind; and, on the other hand, if the mind poffeffed as much liberty to go contrary to inducements, as it does inclination to follow them, induce

ments would have no poffible effe&t; exhortations, admonitions, and warnings, would be of no poffible fervice.

If God purpofed that man fhould come to a knowledge of his own infirmities in the way that he does, he must have intended all the means whereby the purpose might be accomplished. And if he defigned that any degree of moral holine fs fhould be found on earth, fuch inducements muft influence the minds of men, which would neceffarily produce it. That God does, in a ftrict fenfe of fpeaking, require more of any of his creatures than they are able to perform, is inconfiftent with the dictates of good reason, and deftitute of fcripture authority; and has no better foundation for its fupport, than an idea that darkness originates in the fun. or light in an opaque body. But does not God require perfect holiness in man? Does he not command flrict obedience, to every jot and tittle of his law ?

I have before argued, that the fpirit of God's law, in its infinite fullnefs, was above the capacity of man in a finite flate, in which he was made fubject to vanity; and that it was the fhadow of the law only that was introduced to the creature's underftanding, and that for the purpose, that the offence might abound. Then, fays my opponent, if you are correct, in

this ftatement, does it not prove that the requirement is more than the abilities of the creature can perform? And how can the difficulty be removed?

The fubject now in queftion, is a query, on which, many religious difputes have arisen, and much difference of fentiments refted. Two grand parties, in Christendom, have been formed by it; and those two have fubdivided, according to their different modes of folving, thofe - difficulties, to which they have been driv. en by their antagonists..

Some have contended, that in the beginning, man was poffeffed of fufficient ability to have kept the law of his Maker perfectly; but, that he loft that ability, by tranfgreffion; and, that neither Adam, nor his pofterity, was ever able to retrieve it; but, although man has loft his ability to obey, God has not loft his right to command. This has appeared to many, to be found argument.

Suppofiing Government had an occa fion for raifing an army, and should command a cripple to bear arms, and endure fatigue; The poor cripple defires confideration, on account of his infirmities, but is told, that his father crippled him, in infancy, which, if he had not done, he would now have been able to endure fatigue ; but, as his father did him this piece of mif

chief, in his infancy, he muft, and ought to comply with impoffibilities, on pain of death! This has juft the fame appearance of sound reason as the other.

Others have endeavored to folve this matter, by placing a total inability in the will of the creature; arguing that no a bility is wanting but a willingness, &c. They admit, at the fame time, that the power of altering the will, does not belong to the creature. Thefe argue, that this inability is criminality. I have already fhown, that will is a confequence arifing from our perceptions of objects, which proves, if our understanding were perfect, our will would be fo. The criminality, therefore, might be placed on the under. ftanding, as well as on the will. The reader will obferve, that I am fpeaking of criminality, which is fuppofed to be feen by the All-wife, in his creatures. It cer tainly cannot be a default, for the reader to fee, that there is as much inability in the understanding, as there is in the will, when a man is fo much deceived, as to think it more for his happiness to be difhonest, than to be governed by the prin ciples of integrity.

Others fay, Adam loft his ability to obey, by tranfgreffion, but that God reftored it again, by the Mediator, and man poffeffes it now, as a gift of God, through

Chrift; and argue, that it is in the power of man to keep the law of God perfectly. If this is the cafe, it feems that it might as well have been otherwife, as there is not a juft man on earth, who liveth and finneth not. All who argue this idea, acknowledge that they have been finners; and indeed, if they did not, they would have no part nor lot, in the fon of Jeffe.

Let us now state fairly, this gordianknot, and fee if we can find a truth that will cut it. If it ftands in a plain contradiction in words, it will the better expofe its difficulties, and we fhall the better know how to attack it. I will ftate it thus, God requires of man what he cannot perform; all that God requires of man, man can perform: And now for the truth that will shine to illuminate so dark a place. Obferve, with attention; God's holy, just, and infinitely perfect law, ftands in the eternal constitution of the heavenly man, the second Adam, the Lord from heaven; it requires perfect boliness in Christ, the Mediator, who is the Lord, our righteoufnefs.

And in

him, we are able to fulfil all righteoufhcfs, and fland unaccufed and uncondemned. I fay more, we have never violated that perfect law of holinefs, in the heavenly nature, but have fulfilled all it required.

H