ested in his righteousness, he is perfectly righteous ; and if he be perfectly righteous, he cannot be sinful; and therefore cannot have cause to repent for his sins, to grieve for them, or seek pardon for them." In answer to this, I would entreat you to consider, 1. That this is to blend together justification and sanctification, as if they were the same thing. There is not the least shadow of a consequence, that because believers are interested in a perfect righteousness, and are thereby perfectly justified in the sight of God, therefore their sanctification is complete, and they perfectly holy. God may blot out our transgressions as a cloud, and cast our iniquities into the depths of the sea, by a gracious pardon; when yet we have cause to acknowledge ourselves altogether as an unclean thing, and that if he should mark iniquity, we could not stand; that if he should contend with us, we could not answer him one of a thousand. And is that an argument why we should be bold and careless in sinning, because God has been infinitely gracious in pardoning our sin? Is it an argument why we should securely and ungratefully abuse our heavenly Father, because he has laid us under the strongest obligations to love and serve him? But it seems to be the drift of those whom you would personate in this argument, that the believer's violation of the law of God is no sin; that their not being under the law, but under grace, makes it no ways criminal in them to transgress the law; and their being united to Christ, legitimates even the grossest transgressions both of the law and Gospel. If this be intended, I must observe to you, that, in order to a just deducing of this conclusion, it must be supposed that the law of God is wholly vacated, and ceases to be a rule of life; though the Apostle assures us, that the law is not made void by faith, but established. It must also be supposed, that holiness of life is not required by the Gospel of Christ, though the whole design of the Gospel is to promote holiness; and we are expressly told, that the “ grace of God which brings salvation, teaches us, that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world." And it must even be supposed, that the nature of the glorious God himself must be changed; that he can look upon sin with approbation, and be pleased with what is most opposite to his own purity and rectitude. It must be supposed that David's murder and adultery, that Peter's denying his Lord, with cursing and swearing, &c. were acceptable to God. What blasphemy! what subversions of the very light and law of nature are contained in such principles as these! But you will say, perhaps, that it does not obviate the difficulty, to show the inconsistency and incongruity of these principles, while the question yet remains, whether they do not (how wicked soever) necessarily follow from my doctrine of our union to Christ? To which it is sufficient answer, that, by virtue of a believer's union to Christ, his righteousness is imputed, to answer the demands of the justice and law of God; and thereby to reconcile the believer to God, but not to legitimate his sinful actions. It is to procure him a pardon for past sins, and not a license for future transgres sions. It is to free him from the guilt and condemning power of sin; but not to change the nature, and destroy the inseparable essential desert of sin. It is true, that the believer is hereby interested in God's covenant, mercy, and love; therefore secure of a gradual sanctification, whereof his repentance, hatred of, and sorrow for sin, is a peculiar and principal part. Whence it follows, that we must mourn for our sins, repent of, and hate them, in order to evidence our union to Christ and interest in him ; and not live contentedly in sin, from a vain dream of our union to him. There can be no such thing in nature as an impenitent true believer, and therefore all conclusions of this kind are groundless and impious. 2. It is a fact most notorious, and admits of no dispute, that believers have not a perfect personal and inherent righteousness in the sight of God; and therefore the doctrine under consideration affords no handle for such licentious pleas as you have suggested. Christ's righteousness imputed to us, it is true, is perfect; and therefore our justification is perfect too, by virtue of our interest in it, so that on that account we have no cause of any disquietment and uneasiness. But what is our own personal righteousness? It is filthy rags. It is loss and dung. Aud "if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." Have we no cause, therefore, to lament the imperfection of our own righteousness, because Christ's righteousness is perfect? Have we no cause to lament the great defects of our sanctification, because our justification is perfect? Have we no matter of uneasi ness on account of our non-conformity to the holiness of God, because his vindictive justice is satisfied? Have we no occasion to lament that we are no more prepared and ripened for heaven, because we hope to escape hell? Have we no reason to lament the dishonour we do to God, because he has, in infinite mercy, been pleased to pardon our sins, and make us heirs of glory? And, in fine, have we no sins to repent of, when, in many things, we all offend, and when our offences are peculiarly aggravated by our distinguishing privileges and obligations? I speak these things upon the supposition that we have an assurance of a justified state; which (as I have before proved) no man ever had, or can have, while he makes light of sinning. little likely that they are true believers, who believe in Christ for a pardon only; or that they are true penitents, whose only motive is the penalty, and not the turpitude of sin, which should make us loathe it, and ourselves for it, though conscious of a par don. It is You further observe, that the "Antinomians argue from the doctrine of our union to Christ, as I have proposed it, that the sins of believers do really belong to Christ, as the sins of the hand really belong to the head unto which those hands are united. Accordingly, he actually bare our sins, and God laid upon him the iniquiThe sins that the believer commits, suffered for us, belong to Christ, and not to the They are his sins, not ours. They are already accounted for by him, and consequently are not now to be repented of by us. You suspect (you say) that there are too many among us, who quiet themselves with such dangerous pretences, while going on in sinful practices; that these seem to found their erroneous principles upon the doctrine taught in my last; and you desire me to consider, whether they do not naturally flow from it." There needs no other answer to this, than to show you, that our sins are to be considered in a three-fold respect. They are to be considered with respect to their pollution, or contrariety to the holiness of God; with respect to their innate guilt, or contrariety to the preceptive will of God; and with respect to their desert, or relation to the penalty denounced against them by the justice and law of God. It is in the latter sense only, that our blessed Saviour bare our sins, and was made sin for us; and that our sins are, by virtue of our union to Christ, imputed to him, and esteemed as his. If this be distinctly considered, the case will appear most plain and evident. If we consider sin with respect to its blot or pollution, it is the abominable thing which God's soul hates. It is what he " is of purer eyes than to behold," and what he cannot look on but with abhorrence and detestation. Now, it were the greatest blasphemy to suppose, that our Lord Jesus Christ did in this sense take our sins upon him, so as to be polluted and defiled with them. harmless, undefiled, and (in this from sinners." blemish." He was 66 He was a He was 66 holy, respect) separate lamb without spot and "God's beloved Son, in whom he was well pleased." In this sense, then, sin be |