conceived to be in the head, is at the time present, in a manner, in a great variety of members, animating them all with natural life, and governing their several motions. So the scripture says expressly, "that if any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his; that he who is joined to the Lord, is one spirit ; that all believers are baptized by one spirit into one body." From which it appears how truly and properly believers are represented as making up one body, of which Christ is the head, because his spirit dwells in them all, as a principle of spiritual life.

This, therefore, if duly considered, makes it less strange, that his righteousness should be imputed to them, and that they should receive all manner of benefits for his sake. It might indeed seem strange, if the merits of one should be imputed to another, who is entirely a stranger, and no way united or interested in him; but seeing, in the present case, the union of the two is so near, that they are said to be one, John xvii. 21. why should it seem so strange, that the merits of the head should be imputed to the members?

Concerning Christ's active righteousness, it may be farther observed, that Christ's actions may be looked upon as the actions of his divine, as well as human nature; whereas his sufferings are only the sufferings of his human nature; so that it is full as easy to con ceive infinite merit in the former, as in the latter.

Besides, it may be useful to observe, that it is far more ordinary to see one receiving favours for the good actions, than for the sufferings of another. These and other considerations, might, perhaps, be useful to some, who think it easier to conceive the imputation of Christ's sufferings, than of his active righteousness. In effect, a sinner has little concern to argue against any of them and if the question is proposed, whether Christ's righteousness, and incomparably excellent actions, had any merit in them to deserve blessings to his people (as his sufferings had merit to save from misery) it is difficult to imagine how any Christian can answer in the negative.

The direct effect of Christ's sacrifice is the expiation

of sin but it is not only pardon of sin, but all bless ings in general that we are commanded to ask in his name, that is, for his sake; and if we are commanded to ask them for his sake, it supposes that it is for his sake they are given, and by his merit they are pur chased, which is a farther confirmation of the imputation of Christ's active, as well as passive righteous

ness.

If it be objected, that Christ was under an obligation to give perfect obedience to the law for himself, and that it is strange, that what he behoved to do for himself, should be imputed to others: it is easy to answer, that even among men, acts of obedience to lawful authority, are meritorious at the hands of men ; and men merit rewards to themselves and others by excellent actions, which, notwithstanding, are actions which they ought to have done, and were obliged to do. Again, this objection might, perhaps, be made against the merit of his sufferings as well as his actions, since his giving himself to death, was an act of obedience to God. Besides, we should consider that the Son of God's being made flesh, and his dwelling among us, were not things that he was obliged to in that manner that mere creatures are obliged, to avoid sin, and obey the law that glorious person's assuming our nature, and living among us for such a space of time, a a life full of the most perfect and excellent actions, though in a mean condition; these were not things that he was obliged to; but voluntary actions of infinite condescension. Further, though the Redeemer's innocence was necessary to make his sacrifice acceptable ; yet no man can prove but it was possible that blessed sacrifice might have been offered without his glorifying the Creator, magnifying the law, and adorning the creation, by living a life of so many years among creatures on earth in such a way and manner.

IV. Another branch of the doctrine of the gospel, which many are prejudiced against, is, the doctrine of divine grace, as requisite to renew and purify our nature. Many treat this doctrine as a chimera; and, which is not easy to account for, it meets with that

treatment from some persons who profess some kind of religion.

In the mean time; nothing is more plain than that denying the reality of grace is an undermining all true devotion. It destroys the use of prayer; for if there be no divine operation on the soul, to make men truly good and virtuous, what is it but a mocking of God, to apply to him for that end? Now this is contrary to the universal sense of mankind; not only Jews and Christians, but Mahometans and Pagans themselves acknowledge that prayer and thanksgiving is a principal part of the service due by creatures to the Creator; that one of the chief things they should pray for is, good and virtuous inclinations, and a pure disposition of mind that they who have attained to these excellent things, should thank God for thểm, that is, acknowledge him as the source of them; whereas he who denies divine grace, in order to be consistent with himself; must maintain that a man must neither peti, tion God to make him good and virtuous, nor thank him for his being so, that he should neither seek his assistance in order to perform duty, or in order to avoid sin.

It is objected against this doctrine, that it interferes with the liberty of man's will, that a man is not free in doing good, or avoiding evil, if he be thus influenced to it by any external cause. But surely our fellow creatures are external causes, as well as the Creator, men are free in doing good, though influenced by other men; why should the case alter about the more powerful influence of God? Besides, without any prejudice to free will, men are (almost continually) passive in receiving impressions of bodily objects; why may it not be the same as to impressions of spiritual objects? Though men are passive in receiving impres sions of visible things, yet they are free in their inclination to, or aversion from them, and in pursuing or avoiding them, and in all their actions relating to them. It is easy to apply this to sį ir tual impressions. Both flow from one cause: the Author of grace, and the Author of nature is one and the same: it is from

God that men receive invisible light and bodily strength; it is he that continues as well as gives them; men are passive in receiving both, yet free and active in making use of both; there is no reason why spiritual light and spiritual strength may not be conceived as derived from God, and consistent with the liberty of man in the same manner.

There is a necessity for acknowledging a divine influence in giving and continuing the common exercise of reason, and soundress of mind; without that favourable influence, reason could not subsist. A few grains of matter misplaced in the brain, are sufficient to make the greatest wisdom on earth sicken into raving and distraction. If liberty is not hindered by that influence that preserves the exercise of reason in general, why should it be thought to be hindered by that stronger influence that inclines and enables to the due exercise of reason about things invisible and eternal. To judge truly of the matter, it is certain the liberty of man is not hindered by the Grace of God, * but enlarged and perfected by it.

Sometimes the doctrine of grace is charged with enthusiasm by persons, who, it would seem, do not know what enthusiasm is. It is indeed enthusiam to pretend to grace for revelation of new doctrines: the grace offered in the gospel is only in order to a right impres sion and improvement of the doctrines already revealed in the scriptures. A man may be charged with enthusiasm when he pretends to be acted by divine grace, while he is really destitute of it. But to argue against the reality of grace, because there are some counterfeits of it, (as there are almost of all good things,) is a way of reasoning, which no man will directly avow, and all ridicule founded on it (as there is a great deal that has no other foundation) should be looked on as weakness and extravagance.

It is no less unreasonable to charge this doctrine with favouring sloth and indolence: as if it encouraged men to neglect activity in duty, because they are passive in receiving grace. The gospel teaches men to be active in seeking grace, and in using it. And it

is plain that such powerful assistance is the greatest encouragement in the world to diligence and application. He that would effectually disprove the necessity of grace, must prove one of these two things, either that the ends for which grace is offered, are useless; or that these ends may be obtained without grace : he that considers these two things, will hardly undertake to prove either of them. A man must have a very odd way of thinking, that imagines the ends, for which grace is offered are useless. How will a man pretend to prove, that it is no way requisite to the perfection and happiness of our souls, to be far more deeply affected with the eternal objects of faith, than with the short-lived objects of sense to have the heart more enamoured with the infinitely amiable excellency of the Creator, than with any faint shadows to be found in the creatures to have the affections more strongly bent on the enjoyment of the all-sufficient source of good, that boundless ocean of blessedness and perfection, than on the enjoyment of empty fleeting vanities? not to insist on the other various ingredients of solid devotion, and of holiness, and integrity of heart and life. To disprove the use and necessity of these things, a man must prove that God is not the chief happiness of our souls; or that the enjoyment of God does not require the love of God, or his image, and conformity to him; or that holiness is not his image. As to the necessity of grace in order to holiness, let us but compare the disposition of mind just now mentioned, with the temper of those that despise grace; the one is just the reverse of the other: It is true, they may know spiritual objects, they may hear, and read, and speak a great deal of them; for example, of God's infinite perfections: but then it is in such a manner, that their hearts are less affected with them ofttimes, than with the most insignificant trifles: they themselves must confess it ought to be otherwise, and that their minds ought to be more deeply penetrated, and more strongly affected with these incomparable objects, than with any thing else in the world and in effect, one would think it should be sufficient to con