398

ON ST. PAUL'S TESTIMONY TO REVELATION.

some hints of this kind; but no such thing appears.* As to what the author urges, that this epistle always speaks of the Jewish priesthood and economy as abolished, done away, and ceased: no more is said in this epistle to this purpose than in other epistles, which are undoubtedly St. Paul's, and written before the destruction of Jerusalem. As in the passage before referred to, p. 236, where he declares, that Christ hath broken down the middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles: and that he hath abolished the law of commandments in ordinances,' &c., and hath blotted out the hand-writing of ordinances, and hath taken it away, nailing it to his cross.' Here, it is evident, St. Paul speaks of the legal economy as abolished and done away in Christ, that is, that the obligatory virtue of it was ceased, in epistles written whilst the temple was yet standing.' And yet our author here takes upon him to affirm, that the apostle never would have done this in his time, while he himself was complying with it occasionally, and pronounces it to be a most wild and extravagant notion, that the Jewish priesthood and sacrifices had been abolished and done away, while the whole Christian circumcision was under it, and submitting to it,' p. 100, 101. The consistency of the practice and conduct of St. Paul and the other apostles in this matter hath been fully shown. But I cannot help observing, by the way, the great consistency of this writer, who, in his former book, had strongly asserted it over and over as a most certain matter of fact, that could not be denied, that St. Paul, in all the synagogues of the Jews throughout the lesser Asia, had preached up to the Jews themselves the abrogation of the ceremonial law, and endeavoured to convince them that it was done away by the death of Christ, as if he had made this the constant subject of his preaching, which is carrying the matter a great deal too far; but in his present book represents the supposing him ever to have talked of the abrogation of the law at all, as so wild and extravagant a notion, that it deserves no consideration at all.' What can be done with an author that so glaringly contradicts himself, and seems to have no settled scheme of principles at all, but affirms or denies things just as best answers his present purpose?

He speaks, chap. viii. 13, of the Covenant's waxing old, and being ready to vanish away, yyùç åpanoμoũ, near an abolishment or disappearing,' which seems to show that the time for its utter abolition or vanishing away by the destruction of the temple and city of Jerusalem was not yet come, but was very near.

399

CHAPTER VI.

That the law of Moses did not extend only to the outward actions, but to the inward dispositions. That it did not confine benevolence to those of their own particular body, nor was founded in the principles of persecution, shown in opposition to the author's attempt to prove the contrary. What he further offers to prove, that human sacrifices were indulged and encouraged in that law, shown to be vain and insufficient. His exceptions with regard to the case of Abraham's offering up Isaac, considered. That patriarch vindicated from his charge of enthusiasm.

THE author had, in his first book, affirmed, that the law of Moses was merely political, and that it could only relate to outward actions, but could not relate to the inward principles and motives of action, whether good or bad. In answer to which I showed, by express testimonies from that law, that it did not relate to the outward actions alone, but to the inward principles and motives of action. Upon which he now observes, that all political laws must presuppose the reasonableness of inward truth and righteousness, but yet it is only the outward practice or political part that can be guarded or secured by force: this is all that can be done by any temporal penal laws, p. 104. But the argument I urged was this, that Moses did not merely suppose, but frequently and expressly require and enjoin, a right disposition of the heart and mind, as well as a proper outward practice; and therefore this must be regarded as properly the subjectmatter of his law.

Our author himself, after shifting awhile, owns that Moses preached moral truth and righteousness to the people, but then this he did, not as a lawgiver and judge, but as a prophet and preacher of righteousness. This is really granting the point in question. For it must be considered, that it was as a prophet extraordinarily inspired of God, that Moses delivered his law. And the design of it was not merely to erect that people into a civil community, but into a sacred polity. It was not therefore merely a system of political precepts, intended to regulate their outward actions and civil conduct in society, but to form them to just sentiments and a right practice in religion, and to give them directions as to the whole of their conduct. And, therefore, it contains solemn commands and injunctions, in the name of God himself, their supreme lawgiver, relating not only to their outward behaviour, but to the inward affections and dispositions of their minds. And these precepts are as express as any other commands of the law, enforced by the same divine authority by which the other commands are enforced. And though the neglect of those precepts that required good inward dispositions of mind, could not come under those penalties in the law that were to be inflicted by the civil Magistrate, yet they came under the general sanctions of the law, as enforced by the hopes of the divine favour, and the fears of the divine displeasure, to which they were taught by Moses to have a continual regard. And, therefore, no reason

can be given why these should not be as properly regarded as a part of that law, as any other laws or injunctions there prescribed. And in this view good men considered the law, and extolled its great usefulness and excellency, as enlightening the mind, purifying and rejoicing the heart, and converting the soul, &c. Psalm xix. 7-11.

I had urged the tenth commandment as forbidding all coveting, &c. The author answers, that this relates to the outward act of robbery, rapine, violence, &c. and not barely to the inward act of coveting, desiring or wishing for, &c. But how does he prove that it doth relate to the outward act of rapine, &c. The reason he gives, is, because if this was not against rapine and robbery, there is no commandment in the decalogue against it. As if the law, commanding not to steal, was not a sufficient prohibition of robbery and rapine, especially in so short and comprehensive a collection of laws as the decalogue is. But both the propriety of the words themselves naturally lead us to interpret the tenth commandment as principally relating to the inward desires and motions of evil concupiscence; and the apostle Paul so interprets it, as I showed, which this writer thinks proper to take no notice of. And though as he urges, the inward act of coveting could not possibly fall under the cognizance of any human penal law, yet it could fall under the cognizance of a divine law, and of God, the giver of that law, whom they were taught to regard as their supreme governor and judge, who perfectly knew their hearts, and from whom they were to expect rewards and punishments accordingly.

He had mentioned it as a defect in Moses's law, that it provided no sufficient remedy against intemperance, &c. But now he owns, that in the passage I quoted from Deut. xxix. 19, 20, Moses threatens such sinners, as indulged themselves in drunkenness and intemperance, with the vengeance of God, as offenders against the rule and law of righteousness; but he would have me produce a statute or law of Moses, where such acts of personal intemperance are made penal, i. e. where civil penalties were enacted against them. But, surely, if Moses threatens such sinners with the wrath of God, and that all the curses written in the law should be upon them, as in the passage I produced, this, to those that regarded it as the law of God, enforced by his express authority, ought to have had a mighty weight. And if, notwithstanding this, that nation run into great excesses of intemperance, as this writer alleges, this was not to be charged upon the law, but upon the corruption of mankind; no more than the corruption of Christians is to be charged upon the gospellaw.

But he farther observes, that St. Paul every where distinguishes the law of Moses from the law of faith, fidelity, or righteousness towards God. And that he proves at large, that righteousness could never be obtained by the law, which was a law of works, or outward obedience only,' p. 105. But this author entirely mistakes or misrepresents the apostle's sense, and seems to have no just notion at all of the design of his arguings on this subject. St. Paul doth not represent it as if the law only required outward obedience, whereas

the Gospel requires inward righteousness: nor doth he, by calling it the law of works in opposition to the law of faith, intend to signify, that it only required external works, or acts of duty. This would be to make him contradict himself, and subvert his own argument. For he expressly represents the law as extending to the inward motions of the soul, and as forbidding and condemning the inward irregular workings of concupiscence; and that, therefore, it was by the law he came to the knowledge of sin. He declares, that the law was holy, just, and good; and that it was spiritual, though men were carnal, Rom. vii. 7-14. And he proves, that by the works of the law could no man be justified, that is, accepted in the sight of God, and entitled to life; which is what he means by justification in this argument, because no man could perfectly obey its precepts. And therefore, his doctrine is, that we must be justified or accepted only through the infinite grace and mercy of God, by which faith, or a steady dependence on his faithfulness, truth, and goodness, issuing in a sincere obedience and the practice of righteousness, is graciously accepted and rewarded, though imperfect, and attended with failures and defects. Thus Abraham the father of the faithful, who was so highly favoured of God, and upon their descent from whom the Jews so highly valued themselves, was justified before the law was given: He believed God, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness; that is, he exercised a firm trust and dependence on his faithfulness, goodness, and mercy, and on his most gracious promises, and showed the reality of this faith by his obedience and ready submission to the significations of the divine will, and therefore was accepted and justified before God, though he had not yet received circumcision, nor was any part of the ceremonial law yet instituted. And when the law of Moses was afterwards given, the design of it was not to alter or annul the promise made to Abraham, or render it of none effect. Still good men, even under the law, were justified and accepted of God, as Abraham had been, not merely by their works, or obedience to the law, which obedience, being defective, could not in strict justice entitle them to a reward, but by their faith and trust in the divine grace and mercy, productive of a sincere though imperfect obedience. The law was added, as the apostle speaks, because of transgressions. It was given to restrain idolatry, and other offences, to discover to men their duty, and to convince them of sin, to keep them under a strict discipline and tutorage, suited to that time and state of things, till the time should come for the last and most perfect revelation of the divine will, and for the full disovery of the divine grace and mercy through Jesus Christ, the promised Saviour. This seems to be the account the apostle gives of the true original design and intent of the law. And, accordingly, Christ being come, that peculiar economy is abolished. And as Abraham was justified without the observance of the Mosaic law, or any of its peculiar rites and ceremonies which were not then instituted; so Christians now are justified without observing any of the peculiar legal rites and injunctions, which were only imposed for a

D D

time till the promised seed should come, in whom all nations were to be blessed. They are accepted and justified as Abraham was, freely, by divine grace through faith, or a steady trust in God, and dependence on his mercy, faithfulness, and goodness, and on his most gracious promises and the revelations he hath given of his will, accompanied with a sincere though imperfect obedience to his holy and excellent precepts. But this faith, now required of us, hath a more explicit regard than that of Abraham had to the Redeemer, as being now actually come, and in whom the exceeding riches of the divine grace and mercy are most gloriously displayed, and freely offered and exhibited.

But to return to our author. He had laid a mighty stress upon it, as an insuperable objection against the Mosaical economy, that though it obliged those that were under it to live in peace and amity with one another, yet they were put into a state of war with the rest of the world; and that the Jewish state, or the religion of Moses, was founded on the principles of persecution. In opposition to this it was clearly shown, by express testimonies from the law itself, that it prescribed to the people of Israel, who were constituted under it, a kind and benevolent conduct, not only towards one another, those of the same community, but towards strangers of any other nation that were among them, whom they were most expressly commanded to treat with the utmost kindness and humanity. And, whereas this writer had urged, that this was only to be understood of such strangers as were incorporated with them, I showed, that it extended to all strangers, though not incorporated into their peculiar polity, nor observing any of their particular laws and rites, provided they did but worship the one true God, free rom idolatry; nor were they ever to persecute any for not conforming to their peculiar rites and forms of religion and worship. But the author is resolved to persist in his charge. And the great thing he alleges to make it good is, because of their distinctive rites and usages, whereby they were kept separate from other nations, which he represents as obliging them not so much as to converse with those of any other nation, nor to show them the least marks of common respect, civility, or decency.' And he thinks there could not be a more effectual method taken to establish a state of eternal enmity and war between them and the rest of the world than this;' and that it was not possible that a people thus constituted could propagate the true religion to other nations but by force of arms.' And that this therefore, was a 'declaration of war with the rest of the world, made and confirmed by their very constitution,' pp. 107, 108. And he repeats it again, p. 112. It will be acknowledged, that by the Mosaic constitution there were many distinctive rites and usages appointed, the design of which was to keep them from incorporating with other nations, lest they should learn their corrupt customs, and by too great a familiarity be drawn into a conformity to their idolatrous rites. And the proneness they showed to revolt to the usages of other nations, notwithstanding all this care to keep them distinct, showed the wisdom and expediency