under condemnation, or rise to eternal life in the day of judgment. If any one will attentively read over any of these rules of righteousness, purity and love, enjoined upon those who would be his followers and subjects, he will scarcely fail to say, as Jesus himself signified on another occasion-" Truly these are the laws of a kingdom which is not of this world." The language of them all, and not that only which explains the nature and extent of charity, seems to be," Be ye perfect, even as your Father who is in Heaven is perfect." It is true, some of these laws relate to properties in our nature, and to objects, in respect to which we cannot be supposed to have any resemblance to the attributes or dispositions of the divine nature. But it will, probably, nay, assuredly be found upon thorough examination, with experience and undiverted reason for our guides, that there is not a precept given by Christ, which is not indispensable to the perfection and maintenance of those virtues in us, which correspond to the divine attributes. This might be shown in regard to all the particulars; but it will be sufficient to remark, with respect to the law of chastity, which may seem least of all to have a reference to any perfection in God, that the observance of it, is most intimately united with the purity, and with the worth and enjoyment of every virtue in the mind and in the heart.

Though it were supposed, then, that the text was enjoined by Christ, with immediate and primary application to our charity, to illustrate its comprehensiveness; yet, by the unqualified terms in which every command is delivered, showing us the most consummate perfection in all things, were it construed with a reference to all the other principles and doctrines he inculcates, we should only apply to them in a single expression, that which is conspicuously intended in the exposition of each. As to any argument respecting a supposed unreasonableness

C

in the Gospel, in demanding absolute perfection of such beings as we are, an extension of the construction to the whole of christian virtue has the same effect, as if it be confined to a single one; since it would be as unreasonable to require of us, a divine perfectness in one, as in all, upon the principle on which such an objection proceeds.

It shall be my object in this discourse to show, that the law of our duty given us in the Scriptures, is perfect without abatement or qualification. In doing this, I shall first take notice of some apparent difficulties, which may furnish objections to the doctrine; and then show the method of the Scriptures in removing these difficulties. First I am to take notice of some difficulties apparently furnishing objections to our being placed under a perfect law of righteousness.

It is objected, that if we be subject to much infirmity, and corrupt by nature, as the Scriptures declare, and as we shall acknowledge, it is implied, that we cannot fulfil a perfect law of charity, of justice, of self control, of purity from all mixture of sin, in thought, word, and action. And it cannot be rationally supposed, that God will command us to do that, which, in a strict sense, is to us impracticable. This, I believe, is the difficulty in its full force. From this, different persons would draw different conclusions. Some would say, that we are not to consider Christ, as actually intending to be understood, in the full sense of his expressions; but only so far as our infirmity, and inevitable sinfulness, will permit us to go, in our obedience; while others, declining this construction, would at once conclude, that the Scriptures, being thus obviously unreasonable, are not to be received as the word of God. The former of these opinions may be resorted to, by such as would still claim to be christians; the latter is that of unbelief. Let us see whether the

difficulty be really as great, as it purports to be; and whether the conclusions to which it is supposed to lead, can be properly sustained.

That a law, or system of laws, may properly be entitled to the name, it must be explicit, and apply itself alike to all. It must give a full description of the duty to be performed, or of the action or sentiment which it forbids; for otherwise a misapprehension of it, and consequent trangression, might be chargeable to the vague sense in which the precept was delivered, and not to the intention or fault of the transgressor. But what definiteness could be given to the expression or the construction of a law, which should accommodate itself to human ability, or human weakness? If the degree of moral strength, for the fulfilment of the law, were precisely the same in all men, it might be supposed possible to frame the rules for the direction of our conduct, according to this degree. But is it not probable, may we not consider it as certain, that, diversified as the human race is, so that we might as easily find two, that were perfectly alike in their faces and their persons, as in the qualities and faculties of their minds, no law which should be fitted to one, would be proper for any other, that ever did or ever shall exist upon the earth? They, therefore, who complain of the perfection of the laws dictated to us as divine in the sa cred Scriptures, and who insist that they must be accommodated to our weakness or depravity, before they can be considered as rational, ought first to show the possibility of what they approve and ask. Is it not evident, that a law must be prescribed for every individual, that it may be exactly suited to his peculiar dispositions and capacities, and become a rational law for his government and proper responsibility? Nay, must it not change continually even for each individual, since in no two successive years, might we not say months, or days, does the

moral strength of the same person continue precisely at the same standard? If a man improve in obedience and virtue, the law must advance to superior claims upon him, that his spiritual growth may not be at an end. But on the other hand, should he degenerate, and become hardened in guilt, and blinded in his moral discernment, the law too must descend with him, and abate its claims, lest it ask too much, for the depravity and moral weakness which he has contracted by the wickedness of his life. Is not all this too inconsistent, and almost too futile for our serious consideration? And yet it is the direct and necessary consequence of the plea we are so apt to hear, and which we ourselves also, are too prone to indulge in our own hearts, against the unconditional perfection of the commandment, delivered in the Gospel by Jesus Christ. The law of our duty then must be a perfect law. It must be such as the Scriptures themselves pronounce it to be, "holy, just and good." It must be the same for all; otherwise it would be subject to the charge of partiality, one of the most odious that is brought against an arbitrary and fickle government. It must be unchangeable, or it would be chargeable with caprice. Were it not both universal and immutable, it would not appear to result from the divine nature; it would indicate that God had not an essential and supreme regard for virtue, but that his attachment to it was so loose and versatile, that his justice would be without consistency; holiness would cease to be the standard of his attributes, and upon the steadiness of his government, no reliance could be placed. Whatever his creatures may become, in whatever circumstances they may be, the spirit of his laws must be the same to all, to angels, to glorified spirits, to men upon this earth, and to all rational beings in the various provinces of his creation. Should he cease to abide by this standard, the wicked would find a plea for

the extenuation of disorder and sin; and thus an authority for them, so far as we can see, in the example and sanction, I would speak it with reverence, even of God himself.

But again, the Scriptures, as has been remarked, are disapproved, for demanding of us the practice of a law of perfect righteousness and purity; or at least that construction is disapproved, which gives to them such a sense. But when such objections are raised, is it sufficiently considered what would be the consequence, if the Gospel were to proceed upon a different plan, and prescribe to us a virtue, which was evidently defective; and defective it must evidently be, did it aim to be such only as we can practice? Would not those, think you, who now find fault, some even so far as to deny the Scriptures to be the word of God, on account of their alleged unfitness, and superiority to our nature, then urge with equal earnestness, and certainly with infinitely greater advantage, that here was a law of human conduct and principle, professing to be declared from Heaven, when in the imperfection and deficiency of its provisions, and in the allowance it gave to sinfulness and corruption in us, it carried within itself, and bore upon its very face, the sentence of its own condemnation, as the result of human ignorance and depravity? What answer could there be returned, were it asserted upon the authority of such an argument, that this also was another contrivance by its authors, to impose upon mankind, a pretended revelation, as appears, they would say, from the policy of consulting the passions, the prejudices, and the vices, of men? That this is no groundless supposition, is proved by that, which actually occurred in the constructions of the Jews. John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a Devil. The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold, a man glut