"from the hand of the magistrate, or from the "hand of God, but that the cutting off was "ecclefiaftical, as well as the reception or recon"ciliation "." This learned writer afterwards rejects the diftinction made by Ainsworth between fins of ignorance or infirmity, and those that were wilful. But it is evident that the fins referred to, Lev. v. 2.-4., are fuch as proceeded from ignorance. For when mention is made of a man touching any unclean thing, it is faid, "And it be hid from him;" and afterwards, "When he knoweth of it, then he fhall "be guilty." In this cafe, atonement might be made. On the contrary, in the cafes mentioned, Lev. vii. 20, 21., there is every reafon to believe that prefumption was fuppofed. For there is no limitation, as in the former inftance; and one of the cafes fpecified, could not be unknown to the perfon. When, therefore, with refpect to any fin it is faid, that the foul that committeth it shall be cut off, it appears that we are ftill to understand what is faid as refpecting a fin of prefumption; and to view the particular precept as explained by this general one; "The foul "that doth ought prefumptuously,-fhall be cut "off from among his people; because he hath "defpifed the word of the LORD d." This receives confiderable light from the language of the infpired writer to the Hebrews, who uses the very term employed in this precept, and exprefsly points out the fenfe in which fuch tranfgreffors

were

Aaron's Rod, p. 56.

c Lev. vii. 20.

f Num. XV. 30, 31.

were to be cut off: "They who defpifed Mofes' "law, died without mercy 8."

It has been argued, indeed, that death could not be the punishment meant by this expreffion, because we have evidence from Lev. vi. 1.-8. that even for wilful fins, immediately committed a gainst the moral law, atonement might be made 1. But from this exception, in fome cafes particularly ftated, no good argument of a general nature can be deduced. The fupreme Lawgiver had an unquestionable right, if he pleased, to relax the rigour of his law in fome cafes, although he did not in others. Certain it is, that we have no proof of any fuch relaxation, as to fins wilfully committed in regard to his worship. Under that difpenfation, God peculiarly manifefted his jealoufy with refpect to his altar. And if he faw meet to admit of an atonement for tranfgreffions of the moral law, and to prescribe none for prefumptuous profanation of his worship; we have no right to infer the one from the other, and still lefs to fay unto him, What doest thou?

The phrafeology employed in the law, is transferred by the apostle of the Gentiles to the fpiritual excifion of those who trouble the kingdom of Chrift, by the ecclefiaftical fentence of excommunication. For, fpeaking of falfe teachers, he fays, "I would they were even cut off that trouble you." That he refers to a fpiritual fentence, to be inflicted by the Church, is evident from what he had faid a little before: "I have confi

"dence

g

Heb. x. 28.

h Aaron's Rod, p. 56.

"dence in you through the Lord, that ye will "be none otherwife minded: but he that trou"bleth you, fhall bear his judgment, whofoever

"he

he be." And in the ufe of the term, expreffive of the cause of this spiritual excision, he evidently alludes to those who, by any great tranfgreffion, had troubled Ifrael.

With respect to the falfe prophet, or the idolater, it is enjoined, that the congregation fhall put him to death. "So," it is added, "thou "fhalt put the evil away from among you." The Greek tranflation renders this: "Put ye "away from among yourselves that wicked per"fon." This very language the Apoftle Paul ufes with respect to the excommunication of that church-member who had been guilty of inceft: "Put away," he fays, " from among yourselves "that wicked person "."

From the severity of the punishments inflicted under the law, the infpired writer of the epiftle to the Hebrews, pleads not for fimilar punishments, of a temporal kind, under the gospel; but confiders these as emblems of the far feverer punishment to be inflicted on the finally impenitent. He argues from the lefs to the greater. “He "that defpifed Mofes' law, died "under two or three witneffes.

"forer punishment, fuppofe ye,

without mercy,

Of how much

fhall he be

"thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot "the Son of God, and hath counted the blood

i Gal. v. 1O. 12.

1 Deut. xvii. 7. εξ υμών αυτών.

k Joh. vi. 18.; vii. 25.; 1 Chron. ii. 7.

❝ of

m Εξάρεις τον πονηρον

See alfo chap. xiii, 5.
η Εξαρείτε τον πονηρον εξ υμών αυτών. 1 Cor. v. 13.

66

of the covenant, wherewith he was fanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done defpite unto "the Spirit of God?" He gives not the remoteft hint for the direction of church-members who might be invested with civil power, in fucceeding ages, that apoftacy or other fuch crimes fhould be temporally punished. He refers the punishment of it to Him who hath faid, "Vengeance belongeth unto me; I will recompence "."

66

66

SECTION III.

The Covenant made with the Ifraelites ;-their Adoption, Separation,-Sojourning,—and Sufferings.

་

VIII. THE ancient Ifraelites were a people in covenant with God.-It is not meant fully to enter into that difficult question, which has been much agitated even among found divines, Whether the covenant made at Mount Sinai was merely a legal difpenfation of the covenant of grace, or a covenant of a temporal nature, different from the covenant of grace, and peculiarly adapted to the ftate of the Church during that period. It is evident that this tranfaction, however it be denominated, did not, and could not difannul that "covenant "which

o Heb. x. 28.-30.

"which was confirmed before of God in Chrift"," when the promife was made to Abraham and to his feed. It is no lefs evident, that the Sinaitic covenant or difpenfation was given in direct fubferviency to the covenant of grace, and to the clear and glorious revelation of it under the New Teftament. Nor can it be doubted, that believers in every age, even under the law, were faved in a way fubftantially the fame with that revealed in the gospel, by virtue of the covenant of grace made known to the patriarchs.

Confiderable difficulties attend the determination of this queftion. Yet fuch modes of expreffion are used in Scripture, concerning the covenant made at Mount Sinai, as cannot well be confiftently understood, unless it be viewed as fomething more than a mere difference of difpenfation. To prove this, various arguments have been brought, which merit our ferious attention, and the exercife of an impartial judgment. It may be proper to exhibit fome of these as briefly as poffible.

1. The Sinaitic covenant is diftinguished from the other as to its date. While it is afferted that the covenant of grace was "confirmed before of "God in Chrift;" the Apoftle of the Gentiles reminds the Galatians, that "the law was given "four hundred and thirty years after 9." Mofes, fpeaking of this law, under the denomination of a covenant, denies that it was made with the patriarchs.