Juftice. And he therefore gave his only Son as the only Perfon that could, by a finlefs Perfection of Life, fulfil for us, as our Keprefentative, the Strictnefs of this Law.

His Son accordingly did fulfil the Strictnefs of the Law, died for our Sins, and freed us from its Curfe. I fay freed us from the Curse of the Law, but not from the Obfervation of it, as a Rule of moral Duty, though we be fo freed from its original Penalty, (which was Death) in Cafe we difobeyed:---For Chrift paid all our Debts. in that Respect to the Father. But notwithstanding that he thus paid our Debt by dying once for all: Yet he came to fulfil the Law but not to deftroy it.

It will then be, no Doubt, objected, as it frequently is, by Contemners of the Law, how Chrift could inftitute a new Law without abolishing the old. The Answer is clear.

The Mofaic Law, as far as it was ceremonial or judicial, that is, with Regard to the pofitive Externals of Religion, or the Property of Man and Man, is not in any wife to be confidered as a Chriftian's Rule of Duty, and the Law is fo far abolished. But thefe Parts of the Law were, in fome Degree, of political Intent, though dictated by God, partly for the Good of his People, partly from his own Will to punish them, and for other special Reasons. Yet they were not, indeed, the effential Parts B. 3

of

of the People's Duty, even under the Law, (though the Priefts and Bulk of the People mistakenly thought they were) as the Tenor of the Prophets Preachings, their Reproofs and Exhortations clearly evince. But it is the moral Part of the Mofaic Law that is neceffary for us to obferve as a Rule of Duty, that is, fuch Part of it as was intended to explain more clearly the Law of Nature written in our Minds; and which more pofitively enjoined the Obfervance of

it.

And this we find was the effential Part of their Duty, and the Part for which (even by their Law) no material Sacrifice could atone, no temporal Oblation could fuffice: Because a Breach of this Part of the Covenant of Works, pointed an Abuse to divine Majefty, did fo under the Covenant of Nature, and does the fame under the Covenant of Grace. It is impoffible it should be otherwife, and is Folly to think the contrary. For, though by the Mofaic Law there were certain Sacrifices and Oblations, together with Payments of Counter-value, and certain Modes of exterior Conduct, that were judged to be fufficient Atonements for Breaches of the ceremonial and judicial Parts of the Law, yet there were none that could atone for the Turpitude and Guilt of moral Sin. For which Reafon Ifaiah fays, ---i. 10.---To what Purpose is the Multitude of your Sacrifices to me? Saith the Lord: And then gives a Catalogue of those Things

that

that please him. And Micah to the fame Purpose, the vi. 7.---Will the Lord be pleafed with Thousands of Rams, or with ten Thoufands of Rivers of Oil. But in the eighth Verfe he fhews what God requires, what is, and muft be, eternally pleafing to him :--He bath fhewed thee, O Man! what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love Mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? This is, in fine, the Substance and Sum of our Duty, under the Law of Nature, Law of Works, and Law of Grace, and this must, and should be a Christian's Rule of Duty, and is as indifpenfably neceffary under the Gospel, as it was under the Law. And with Refpect to this Part of the Law, the Gofpel is only an Amendment and Confirmation; for that ever was, is now, and ever will be, the invariable Duty of human Agents. The whole Gofpel-tenor confirms this Truth; because Chrift only explained more fully and pofitively our Duty in that Point. Shewing, That it is not the Blood of Bulls or Goats, or any material Offering, or external Conduct, that is pleafing to Go, but the Simplicity of the Heart. For God, being a Spirit, must be worshiped in Spirit and in Truth: ----And this, in Subftance, was no new Doctrine.

CHRIST called Men to Repentance; even this was no new Doctrine; for the Prophets perpetually did the like. We find Ifaiab

8

in the i. 16. after telling the People of their Crimes, and faying their Hands were full of Blood, (which is the Inlet to Repentance : For Repentance fuppofes a Crime to have been committed) exhorting them to Repentance :---Wash ye, make you clean, put away the Evil of your Doings from before mine Eyes, ceafe to do Evil, learn to do well, &c. Is not this calling or exhorting to Repentance? Ceafe to do Evil, learn to do Well. Are not thefe the very Principles that compofe Repentance: "To forfake Evil, and

adhere to Good"? When done from a Sincerity of Mind, which is meant by the Prophet. Where then is the Novelty, in calling Man to Repentance? None. Nor was it a Novelty that Repentance fhould be acceptable to God, or a Means of reconcileing an Offender to him: Though your Sins be as Scarlet, they shall be as white as Snow; though they be red like Crimson they shall be as Wool. Ifaiah i. 18. Here the Prophet, to inculcate this weighty Truth the better and more pleafingly, repeats the fame Thing twice in the fame Verfe, with a Variation of Metaphor. Because, indeed, Repentance ever was, is now, and ever muft be, the only Balfamick in Creature's Power to heal a Wound in Duty. For, A broken Heart, and a contrite Spirit, is a Sacrifice which God never defpifes. It would be incongruous with his Nature to defpife it. Therefore the calling Men to Repentance, nd its being a Means of Reconciliation was Novelty. Yet, RE

REPENTANCE is the great Indulgence under the Law of Grace, which was not under the Law of Works? for though Repentance (as before-mentioned) was at all Times the moft effectual Means that Man could take to avert the Wrath of God for any Crime; yet it never was inftituted as an abfolute Term of Salvation, an infallible Condition of Acceptance, but under the Law of Grace. Before, it was in the Option of God to pardon or punish the Offender as feemed moft agreeable to his Will; it being never instituted as a Term of any Covenant; but by the Covenant of Grace it is; and therefore must be available, when truly performed. And in this Refpect, the Gospel is a new Covenant, more certain, and more indulgent, than the old; and a new Law, though it doth not, in that Particular deStroy or abolish the old, according to the Text before cited. Nor indeed. doth the Law of Grace destroy the Mofaic Law in any ESSENTIALITY, as might be readily fhewn, if it was not my Intent to confine myself here to a mere fummary Answer to this principal Objection made by thofe Contemners of the Law amongst us. The Law of Grace is an Amendment of the Effentialities ofthe Mofaic Law, an Exaltation of its Principles, and an Adaption of them to the Spirit of Christianity.

It will be now afked; "What are the "Parts of the Mofaic Law that are abo"lifhed?