should live soberly, righteously and godly, in this present world." What is the great end which they connect with his priestly office? The Apostle in the same connexion supplies the answer: He "gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people zealous of good works." And wherefore is it that they exhibit him as "Head over all things to the church;" as having “ascended up on high, led captivity captive, and given gifts unto men ?" It is "for the perfecting of the saints,”—“ for the edifying of the body of Christ;" in other words, for conforming them to the perfect standard of God's law. Such is a fair specimen of the testimony of Scripture, in respect to the design and influence of Christ's mediation : and now I ask you whether this testimony is not in perfect accordance with the views of Practical Christianity; whether it is not utterly inconsistent with the views of Antinomianism? If you wished to say, in the most unequivocal language you could command, that Christ's mediation was designed to honour the law, and to enforce the duty, as well as cherish the spirit, of obedience, I ask here, as on a former occasion, could you possibly find language that would be less liable to exception than that which God's word supplies?

3. Antinomianism represents Christ in his mediatorial character as the minister of sin: Practical Christianity, as the minister of holiness.

It is part of the creed of the Antinomian, not merely that the guilt of the elect was reckoned as Christ's, but that it actually became his; that there was a literal transfer to his person of all the sins which they ever have committed, or ever shall commit; and that, in this sense, "he bore our sins in his own body upon the tree." It is impossible, upon this supposition, to avoid the idea

that Christ is the greatest sinner in the universe. And besides, what, upon this principle, is the tendency of his work, but to release men from the obligation to holiness, and of course to throw open the floodgates of crime.— Only let the conviction be thoroughly established in the mind of a sinner that he is one of the elect, and that sin can do him no harm,-that the influence of Christ's mediation secures his safety irrespective of his character, and he has for the time a complete opiate to his conscience; and you are not to wonder if his corrupt propensities rise fiercely into action, and betray a giant's strength.

Practical Christianity indeed recognises Christ as bearing our sins," but in a sense far different from that to which I have just adverted. She contemplates the Saviour as perfectly holy in his human nature; as infinitely holy in his divine nature; and as losing nothing of his holiness in the assumption of the mediatorial office. She contemplates him as bearing the burden of a world's atonement, and yet being a perfectly innocent sufferer; as submitting to be treated as if he were guilty, while yet he was so holy as to deserve and receive the homage of angels. And the purpose for which he humbled himself on earth and for which he is exalted in Heaven, she regards as a perfectly holy purpose ;-nothing less than to sustain the great and holy interests of the divine government, and to render men holy, according to their measure, even as God is holy. Is it not true then that, while Antinomianism degrades the Saviour in his mediatorial character by making him the minister of sin, Practical Christianity exalts him by making him, not the minister of grace only, but of holiness also?

Such are the bearings of the two systems on one great part of the instrumentality employed in the dispensation

of grace. We will now see how they stand related to a humbler part of the same instrumentality,-viz, man's compliance with the terms on which the blessings of the new covenant are secured to him.

And here I remark in general that Antinomianism leaves the sinner nearly passive in the work of his salvation, while Practical Christianity calls him to vigorous and persevering effort. If you exhort the Antinomian to awake to his duty previous to the time when he supposes his justification to have been made manifest to him, he calmly replies that there is nothing for him to do; for if he is one of the elect, the whole work of his salvation has already been accomplished by Christ; and if he is not one of the elect, nothing that he can do can change his condition for the better. And even after he professes to have received the assurance of his election, he has still the same plea, that Christ's work is a finished work, and that to suppose he could render it more perfect were alike arrogant and impious; and as for good works, they savour so much of a legal spirit, that he is kept from the performance of them both by his principles and his dispositions. Accordingly, wherever you find a thorough going Antinomian, you will find a person who does little for the spiritual interests either of himself or of others; and his system supplies him with an apology for being passive; for if there is nothing to do, he surely is justified in doing nothing.

But Practical Christianity has no communion with a spirit of indolence. Her language is "Strive to enter in at the straight gate." "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." "Labour-for the meat that endureth to everlasting life."

"Give diligence to make

your calling and election sure." And these injunctions she enforces by the most impressive and affecting consi

1

derations. Nor are these considerations unavailing; for every Practical Christian is an active Christian: he was active in first consecrating himself to God; he is still active in cultivating the principle of piety in his own heart, and in promoting the best interests of his fellow men; nor does he expect to be free either from labour or conflict so long as he is in the body. Practical Christianity detracts nothing from the Redeemer's merit; she recognises his death as the price, and the whole price, of man's salvation; but, at the same time, she contemplates man as a moral and responsible agent, and even suspends his salvation on a compliance with the terms she has proposed to him.

But let us contemplate a little in detail some of the Christian graces and virtues, as they appear respectively in the light of the two systems.

1. Antinomianism recognises no grounds, and supplies no motives, for true repentance: Practical Christianity does both.

1

Repentance supposes transgression; and transgression takes for granted the existence of a law. Where there is no law, transgression is of course impossible. Or if the law be unreasonable and unjust, so far the violation of it is not sin. Or if it have been repealed and its authority set aside, however just it may be in itself, it has lost its claims upon our obedience, and ceases to be a rule of duty. Now, inasmuch as Antinomianism entirely abolishes the law as a rule of life, so far as respects believers, it is manifestly impossible, upon this ground, that they should ever exercise true repentance; for the reason already mentioned, that, where there is no law, there is no transgression; and where there is no transgression, there is no foundation for repentance.

And as the view which the Antinomian takes of the divine law leaves no ground for repentance so far as believers are concerned, so also the view which he takes of the impotence of the sinner, and of the liberty of the Christian, leaves neither the one nor the other with any motives to repentance. To the sinner he virtually denies the powers of a moral agent, and will have it that he is moved only as a machine, and that all he can do and all he is required to do, is to wait passively for the putting forth of an almighty hand. Now I ask whether this doctrine does not completely annihilate every motive to true repentance on the part of the sinner?— For even though he might feel that the greatest possible blessings were connected with it, and that it were most desirable to him to repent, yet surely the conviction that he was dependant in such a sense that any efforts he might make in the case would not vary the result, would be a reason, and if the conviction were well founded, a good reason, why he should attempt nothing. And as for the believer, the liberty into which he is supposed to be brought by the gospel, as it precludes the possibility of repentance, though on a different ground from that just adverted to, denies also the necessity of it: of course there is not the shadow of a motive for its exercise. Accordingly you see nothing like the workings of true godly sorrow among this class: and no doubt it is their aversion from the practice that predisposes and prepares them for the rejection of the doctrine.

Practical Christianity at once presents the most solid grounds for repentance, and supplies the most powerful motives to it. She contemplates the law as binding alike upon believers and unbelievers; and in every violation of it, whether in the one class or the other, she sees matter for repentance. When the Antinomian