are no damage to the public, or his repentance makes full satisfaction for them. But repentance does not make full satisfaction, as is plain in cases of murder, treason, etc. Of course, on the present supposition, his past transgressions are no damage to the public, or in other words are no moral evil. And if they be no moral evil, neither will any future transgressions be so. A repetition of nothing is still nothing.

If the man who repents do not deserve punishment, he no more deserved it before he repented, unless it be that his repentance make full satisfaction for his sin, and by restoring the tone of the divine law and government, and exhibiting a proper motive to deter others from transgression and repair the damage done to the system. But this is not the fact, as appears by the reasons already given. And if the sinner never deserve punishment, whether before or after repentance, he has committed no evil.

Perhaps it may be objected to some of the foregoing reasoning that God's government needs no support, as it is impossible to overthrow, or even to weaken it, and that the public good of God's kingdom cannot possibly be impaired. If this objection mean that God's government is irresistible, and uncontrollable, this is undoubtedly true. But this is not all that is requisite in the divine government. A human government in the hands of an absolute tyrant may be irresistible; and yet it may be unstable, capricious, relaxed and contemptible. Its laws may not be executed, and disobedience may at least in many instances be practised without restraint. Nor will mere power, however irresistible, be sufficient to prevent these effects. Nor can this government be maintained with honor and dignity but by a steady execution of the laws, or proper satisfaction for crimes. And just so as to the divine government. As to the part of the objection which asserts that the good of God's kingdom cannot be impaired, it may be observed, that it is not true in any other sense, than that the laws of this kingdom cannot fail to be steadily executed, or supported with dignity. As the wisdom, holiness, and goodness of God make it certain that he will steadily execute or support his own good and perfect law, so it is certain that the good of his kingdom cannot be impaired. Otherwise we could not be certain that it might not be. But,

II. Let us consider the other supposition, that the penitent does not indeed on the footing of justice deserve impunity, yet that by FREE GRACE he may obtain it, and that the divine perections require that he should.

If the exemption of the penitent from punishment be an act of

free grace, still divine goodness will not admit of it unless it be required by the general good of the moral system. Now real and extensive goodness, such as the goodness of God, is always governed by the general good, and seeks what is required by that and that only. It would be no goodness, but the very opposite of goodness, to seek an object which however it might promote the happiness of the individual, or of the few, does on the whole, and with respect to the entire system, obstruct or diminish good and happiness. So that the divine goodness does not require the pardon of the sinner on his repentance merely, unless the general good of the moral system require it. Now if the general good require it, it either requires it even without repentance, or it requires it as a consequence of repentance only. If it require pardon in the former case, then the general good requires no satisfaction, or reparation of damage-nothing to restrain or deter others from the like transgression; if this be the fact, it must be because no damage to the public good has been done by sin, and therefore sin is no moral evil.

If on the other hand it be said that the general good requires that pardon be dispensed in consequence of repentance only, still as repentance is no proper punishment of sin, no satisfaction for it, nothing adequate to the ends of deterring and restraining others from its commission, or of supporting the authority of the divine law, and the tone of the divine government, and therefore does not repair the damage done to the moral system by moral evil, it of course follows, that there was no damage done by sin to the system, and therefore that sin is no moral evil.

If the law of nature which is founded on the public good, and always requires what that requires, do not require the punishment of the sinner, or anything to repair the violation of the law of nature, it must be because it has not been violated, that is has not been transgressed, which is contrary to the supposition; for what is sin but the transgression of the divine law, which, where there is no revelation, is the law of nature?

If the penitent deserve punishment, as is now supposed, then the law of nature requires it. As he is supposed to be without revelation, and to sin against no law beside the law of nature, of course he deserves nothing but what the law of nature requires. But it is granted that he deserves punishment. Therefore the law of nature requires it, and of course cannot require that he be dismissed with impunity. Doubtless the law of nature may be executed, in some instances at least, consistently with the general good. It would be absurd to suppose the contrary. The law of nature is founded on the general good. Whatever the general

good requires, reason requires in every instance; and whatever reason requires, the law of nature requires. Therefore if the law of nature require the punishment of the penitent, as it certainly does if by that law he deserves punishment, the general good, and the divine goodness require the same.

It is, in the present state of the argument granted, that by justice and the law of nature the transgressor, even though penitent, deserves punishment. But the law of nature is the law of reason; and the law of reason is the law of the general good of the moral system-the law which is entirely regulated by the general good, and which requires what that requires, and forbids and threatens only what that forbids and threatens. Therefore if the law of justice and of nature threaten and require the punishment of the transgressor, even though he repent, as it is now granted that it does, the general good of the moral system requires the same. Therefore it cannot require at the same time his pardon. And if the general good do not require this, neither does the goodness of God require it. If the sinner though penitent deserve punishment he deserves it by the law of nature. But the law of nature is the law of right, and is the rule of right. That he should be punished therefore is right, all things considered. But the divine goodness never forbids, but absolutely requires what is right all things considered. Therefore the divine goodness requires his punishment.

To allow that it would be consistent with justice to punish the penitent, and yet to say that divine goodness does not admit of his punishment, is to hold a direct contradiction. If his punishment be just and deserved, the general good allows and requires it, as the general good is the measure of justice when no atonement is made. And what the general good requires, divine goodness requires, and what the general good forbids, the divine goodness forbids. And as it is allowed in the case now put that the punishment of the penitent would be just, it is allowed that the general good, and of course the divine goodness admits of it. Therefore to hold this, and at the same time to hold that the divine goodness does not admit of it, is to hold a contradiction. Such is our reasoning. If it be just, several inferences follow.' 1. That there is no evidence from reason, that the penitent will, on the bare ground of his repentance, escape punishment, but abundant evidence to the contrary. This fundamental doctrine of infidelity is so far from having any foundation in reason, the law of nature, or the divine goodness, that it directly contradicts them all, and is irreconcilable with them. Therefore let infidels no more plead any of these in support of this favorite and

fundamental principle of their system. Let them allow that they hold this system, not because it can be supported by reason, by the law of nature, or the divine goodness, but because they derive much ease and comfort from it, as it quiets their fearful apprehensions of future punishment, and therefore they will hold it, however contradictory it be to reason, to the law of nature, and to the goodness of God.

2. Hence it also follows that there is no advantage in infidelity in that very respect in which its advocates flatter themselves there is the greatest advantage. The boasted advantage of infidelity is, that it frees a man from those fearful apprehensions and gloomy feelings which are excited by the doctrine of future punishment as taught in the gospel. But if bare repentance secure not to its subject impunity, all this supposed advantage of infidelity fails; and the infidel knows not but that he may be in the same awful state in which the gospel declares that all those shall be who are not interested in the atonement; and he has abundant reason for all those gloomy feelings and fearful apprehensions, which, as he pretends, are naturally excited by the gospel, so that to become an infidel on this ground is to act with folly. And still more is it the part of folly to embrace infidelity, if, as appears from the preceding reasoning, the divine goodness not only does not secure impunity to the penitent without an atonement, but forbids it as utterly inconsistent with the good of God's kingdom, or of the great system of being.

3. We may also infer, from what has been said, the necessity of an atonement for sin. If there be no foundation to expect the forgiveness of sin on bare repentance, the necessity of an atonement in order to its forgiveness follows of course.

4. Therefore since an atonement is necessary, and since one which is all-sufficient is provided and offered in the gospel, let us joyfully and thankfully receive it, and make that the only foundation of our hope. It is an all-sufficient and glorious foundation. The author of it is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, equal with the father, and one with him. In him we may safely trust. He will never leave, nor forsake us. Nor can we with the least safety depend on any other. "Other foundation can no man lay, than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." Build here, and you are safe forever!

SERMON XVI.

CHRIST OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.*

1 COR. 1: 30.—Of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us,-righteousness.

EVERY truth ought to be made the object of our attention in proportion to its importance. And though all the doctrines of the gospel are important, yet some are more so than others. The doctrines of the present fallen state of mankind; of the possibility and mode of salvation by Christ; of the necessity of union to him, and of justification through him: these are among the most important truths implied in the words of our text. Particularly it is there implied, 1. That all real christians are in Christ: "of him are ye in Christ Jesus;" that is, ye Corinthian converts, and doubtless all other real converts to the christian faith; and 2. That in and through Christ all real believers obtain righteousness or justification: "Who of God is made unto us, righteousness." As the doctrines of the union of believers to Christ, and of justification through him have, in every age of the church, been accounted doctrines of great importance, so they are peculiarly important and necessary to be thoroughly understood at the present day, when they have been perverted to the support of several dangerous tenets which are totally subversive of christianity itself. It may be useful therefore, in view of our text, to inquire,

1. In what sense believers are in Christ, or are united to him; and 2. In what sense he is made righteousness unto them, or they are justified through him.

I. In what sense are believers in Christ, or united to him? “Of him are ye in Christ Jesus." These words doubtless point out a peculiar relation between Christ and believers; a relation which is often mentioned in the New Testament. John 15: 5, "I am the vine; ye are the branches. He that abideth in me and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit; for without me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch and is withered." John 17: 21, “That

* Preached before the General Association of Connecticut, June 19, 1786.