evangelical law; if it was the law of paradisiacal innocence; God treated his peculiar people with greater severity than he did the Egyptians, who were all under the gracious dispensation which St. Peter describes in these words: "In every nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness is accepted of him." (4.) If, because St. Paul decries the obsolete ceremonies of Moses' law, it follows that the moral law delivered to Moses was not a Gospel law, it will also follow that the covenant of circumcision made with Abraham was not a Gospel cove. nant for the apostle expressly decries circumcision, the great external work of that covenant. But as Abraham's covenant was undoubtedly a Gospel covenant, although circumcision is now abolished; so was Moses' law a Gospel law, although the ceremonial part is now abrogated. Lastly: St. Paul, Rom. ix, 4, placed "the giving of the law" among the greatest privileges of the Jews, but if by the law he meant the Adamic covenant, he should have called it the greatest curse which could be entailed upon a fallen creature: for what can be more terrible than for a whole nation of sinners to be put under a law that absolutely curses its violaters, and admits of neither repentance nor pardon?

Flavel, in the page which I have already quoted, makes the following just observation: The law is considered two ways in Scripture. (1.) Largely, for the whole* Mosaical economy, comprehensive of the ceremonial as well as moral precepts; and that law is of faith, as the learned Turretine has proved by four Scripture arguments. (i.) Because it contained Christ, the object of faith. (ii.) Because it impelled men to seek Christ by faith. (iii.) Because it required that God should be worshipped, which cannot rightly be without faith. And (iv.) because Paul describes the righteousness of faith in those very words whereby Moses had declared the precepts of the law. Again: (2.) The law in Scripture is taken strictly for the moral law only, considered abstractedly from the promises of grace. These are two different senses and acceptations of the law.

Apply this excellent distinction of the refinements, with which the doctrine of the law has been perplexed, and you will easily answer the objections of those who, availing themselves of St. Paul's laconic style, lay their own farrago at his door. For instance, when he says, "As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse, for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things, &c," he means, (to use Flavel's words,) the law "considered abstractedly from the promises of grace;" for, in that case, the law immediately becomes the Adamic covenant of works, which knows nothing of justification by faith in a merciful God, through an atoning Mediator; and, in this point of view, the apostle says with great truth, "The law is not of faith, but the man that doth these things shall live in them," without being under any obligation to a Saviour. From the curse of this Adamic, merciless law, as well as from the curse of the ceremonial burthensome law of Moses, "Christ has delivered us;" but he never intended to deliver us

*Thus when St. John says the law came by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ, he does not mean that the law of Moses is a graceless and lying law he only declares, that whereas the Jewish dispensation, which is frequently called the law, came by Moses, with all its shadowy types, the Christian dispensation, which is frequently called grace, came by Jesus Christ, in whom the sha. dows of the ceremonial law have their truth and reality.

from the curse of his own "royal law," without our personal, sincere, penitential, and faithful obedience to it; for he says himself, "Why call ye me Lord! and do not the things which I say?" "Those mine enemies," who put honour upon my cross, while they pour contempt upon my crown," those mine enemies" who would not that I should reign over them, bring hither and slay them before me.

From the preceding arguments I conclude that what St. James calls "the royal law," and the "law of liberty," and what St. Paul calls "the law of Christ," is nothing but the moral law of Moses, which Christ adopted, and explained in his sermon upon the mount; a law this, which is held forth to public view duly connected with the apostles' creed in our Churches, to indicate that Solifidianism is the abomination of desolation, and that the commandments ought no more to be separated from the articles of our faith in our pulpits and hearts, than they are in our chancels and Bibles.

And that we shall stand or fall by the moral part of the decalogue in the great day is evident, not only from the tenor of the New Testament, but even from St. Paul's express declarations to those very Galatians to whom he says, "Christ has delivered us from the curse of the law :" for he charges them to "fulfil the law of Christ;" adding, “God is not mocked; whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap: for he that soweth to his flesh, shall of the flesh reap destruction. I have told you, that they who do such things [adultery, fornication, uncleanness, murders, drunkenness, and such like] shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, &c, goodness, temperance; against such [as bear this fruit] there is no law :" or rather, the law is not against them: for, as the apostle observes to the Corinthians, "We are not" Antinomians-We are not without law to God, but under the law to

Christ."

Among the many objections which Zelotes will raise against this doctrine, two deserve a particular answer:—

"I. If the Mosaic dispensation is an edition of the everlasting Gospel, why does St. Paul decry it when he writes to the Galatians and Corinthians? And why does he say to the Hebrews, Now hath Christ obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the Mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises,' &c, Heb. viii, 6, &c. For of these two dispensations the apostle evidently speaks in that chapter, under the name of an old and a new covenant.'

1. Although Christ is the one procurer of grace under all the Gospel dispensations, yet his own peculiar dispensation has the advantage of the superannuated dispensation of Moses on many accounts, chiefly these : Christ is the Son, and Moses was the servant of God: Christ is a sinless, eternal priest, "after the" royal "order of Melchisedec;" and Aaron was a sinful, transitory, Levitical high priest: Christ is a living, spiritual temple and Moses' tabernacle was a lifeless, material building: Christ writes the decalogue internally, upon the table of the believer's heart; and Moses brings it written externally, upon tables of stone: Christ by "one offering for ever perfected them that are sanctified;" but the Mosaic sacrifices were daily renewed: Christ shed his own precious blood, the blood of "the Lamb of God;" but Aaron shed only the vile blood of bulls and common lambs: Christ's dispensation remaineth, but

that of Moses "is done away," 2 Cor. iii, 11: Christ's dispensation is "the ministration of the Spirit;" but that of Moses is "the ministration of the letter,-of condemnation,-of death," not only because it eventually killed the carnal Jews, who absurdly opposed the letter of their dispensation to the spirit of it; but also because Moses condemned to instant death blasphemers, adulterers, and rebels; destroying them with volleys of stones, earthquakes, fire from heaven, waters of jealousy, &c. All these strange executions were acts of severity, which our mild Redeemer not only never did himself, but never permitted his apostles to do while he was upon earth; kindly delaying the execution of his woes, and chiefly delighting to proclaim peace to penitent rebels. Hence it is that St. Paul says, "If the" Mosaic "ministration," [which, in the preceding respect, was comparatively a "ministration of righteous condemnation,] be glory, much more does the ministration of" Christ [which, in the sense above mentioned, is comparatively a ministration of righteous mercy] "exceed in glory!" 2 Cor. iii, 9.

66

2. With regard to the better promises, on which the apostle founds his doctrine of the superior excellence of the Christian over the Jewish dispensation, they are chiefly these: (1.) "The Lord whom ye seek, even the Messenger of the better covenant, shall suddenly come to his temple." (2.) "To you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings.' (3.) "I will be merciful to your unrighteousness, and your sins I will remember no more: giving you the knowledge of salvation by the remission of sins;" a privilege this which is enjoyed by all Christian believers. (4.) "All shall know me from the least to the greatest: they shall all be taught of God; for I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh, and my servants and my handmaids shall prophesy, i. e. speak the wonderful works of God." This blessing, which under the Jewish dispensation was the prerogative of prophets and prophetesses only, is common to all true Christians. The four evangelists and St. Peter, our Lord and his forerunner, agree to name it "the baptism of the Holy Ghost." St. Peter calls it "the Spirit of promise." Christ terms it also "power from on high, and the promise of the Father." The fulfilment of this great promise is the peculiar glory of Christianity in its state of perfection, as appears from John vii, 39, and 1 Peter i, 12; and it is chiefly on account of it that the Christian dispensation is said to be founded on better promises; but to infer from it that the Jewish dispensation was founded on a curse, is a palpable mistake.

3. Therefore, all that you can make of Heb. viii, 2 Cor. iii, and Gal. iv, 1, is, (1.) That the Jewish dispensation puts a heavy yoke of cercmonies upon those who are under it, and by that means "gendereth to bondage," whereas the Gospel of Christ begets glorious liberty; not only by breaking the yoke of Mosaic rites, but also by revealing more clearly, and sealing more powerfully, the glorious promise of the Spirit. And, (2.) That the "Gospel of Moses," if I may use that expression after St. Paul, Heb. iv, 2, was good in its time and place, and was founded upon good promises; but that the Gospel of Christ is better, and is established upon better promises, the latter dispensations illustrating, improving, and ripening the former; and altogether forming the various steps by which the mystery of God hastens to its glorious accomplishment. VOL. II.

4

"II. If the Mosaic dispensation is so nearly allied to the Gospel of Christ, why does the apostle, Heb. xii, 18-21, give us so dreadful a description of Mount Sinai? And why does he add, So terrible was the sight [of that mount burning with fire] that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake?""

ANSWER. The apostle in that chapter exalts, with great reason, Mount Sion above Mount Sinai; or the Christian above the Jewish dispensation; and herein we endeavour to tread in his steps. But the argument taken from the dreadful burning of Mount Sinai, &c, does by no means prove that the Sinai covenant was essentially different from the covenant of grace. Weigh with impartiality the following observations, and they will, I hope, remove your prejudices, as they have done mine:—

1. If the dispensation of Moses is famous for the past terrors of Mount Sinai; so is that of Christ for the future terrors of the day of judgment. "His voice," says the apostle," then shook the earth; but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. We too look for the shout of the archangel, and the blast of the trump of God;" and are persuaded, that the flames which ascended from Mount Sinai to the midst of heaven were only typical of those flames that shall crown the Christian dispensation, when our "Lord shall be revealed in flaming fire, to take a more dreadful vengeance on them that obey not the Gospel," than ever Moses did on those who disobeyed his dispensation. "Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation; looking for and hasting unto the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat!" How inconsiderable do the Mosaic terrors of a burning bush and a flaming hill appear, when they are compared with the Christian terrors of melting elements, and of a world, whose inveterate curse is pursued from the circumference to the centre, by a pervading fire; and devoured by rapidly spreading flames!

2. How erroneous must the preaching of Zelotes appear to those who believe all the Scriptures! "I do not preach to you duties and sincere obedience, like Mr. Legality on Mount Sinai; but privileges and faith, like St. Paul on Mount Sion." How unscriptural, I had almost said how deceitful is this modish effeminate divinity! Does not the very apostle, who is supposed to patronize it most, speak directly against it, where he says, "We labour that we may be accepted of Him, (the Lord;) for we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, &c. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord [in that great day of retribution,] we persuade men?" Nay, does not he conclude his dreadful description of Mount Sinai, and its terrors, by threatening Christian believers, who "are come to Mount Sion," with more dreadful displays of Divine justice than Arabia ever beheld, if they do not obey "Him that speaks from heaven?" Heb. xii, 25. And does he not sum up his doctrine, with respect to Mount Sinai and Mount Sion, in these awful words! "Wherefore, we receiving [by faith] a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably, with reverence and GODLY FEAR: for OUR God" is not the God of the Antinomians, but "A CONSUMING FIRE:" i. e. the God who delivered the moral law upon Mount Sinai in the midst of devouring flames, and

gave a fuller edition of it in his sermon upon the mount, solemnly adopting that law into his own peculiar dispensation, as "the law of liberty," or his own evangelical law-this very "God is a consuming fire." He will come in the great day, "revealed in flaming fire, to consume the man of sin by the breath of his mouth, and to take vengeance on all that obey not the Gospel," whether they despise its gracious offers, or trample under foot its righteous precepts. If Zelotes would attentively read Heb. xii, 14-29, and compare that awful passage with Heb. ii, 2, 3, he would see that this is the apostle's anti-Solifidian doctrine: but, alas, while the great Pharisaic whore forbids some Papists to read the Bible, will the great Antinomian Diana permit some Protestants to mind it?

Should not the preceding observations have the desired effect upon the reader, I appeal to witnesses. Moses is the first. He comes down from Mount Sinai with an angelic appearance. Beams of glory dart from his seraphic face. His looks bespeak the man that had conversed forty days with the God of glory, and was saturated with Divine mercy and love. But I forget that Christianized Jews will see no glory in Moses, and have a veil of prejudice ready to cast over his radiant face: I therefore point at a more illustrious witness: it is the Lord Jesus. “Behold! he cometh with ten thousand of his saints," says St. Jude, "to execute judgment upon all;" and particularly upon those that "sin wilfully after they have received the knowledge of the truth. There remaineth no more sacrifice for their sins," says my third witness, “but a fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy; of how much sorer punishment shall he be thought worthy, who hath" despised the Christian dispensation, and "done despite to the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me-the Lord shall judge HIS people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God," Heb. x, 26–31.

Thus speaks the champion of free grace. Such is the account which he gives of Christ's severity toward those who despise his dispensation, -a severity this, which will display itself by the infliction of a punishment much sorer than that inflicted on the rebels destroyed by Moses. And are we not come to the height of inattention, if we can read such terrible declarations as these, and maintain that nothing but vinegar and gall flows from Mount Sinai, and nothing but milk and honey from Mount Sion? How long shall we have "eyes that do not see, and hearts that do not understand?" Lord, rend the veil of our prejudices. Let us see "the truth as it is in" Moses, that we may more clearly see "the truth as it is in Jesus."

The balance of the preceding arguments shows that the Mosaic and the Christian covenants equally set before us blessing and cursing; and that, according to both those dispensations, the obedience of faith shall be crowned with gracious rewards; while disobedience, the sure fruit of unbelief, shall be punished with the threatened curse. I throw this conclusion into my Scales, and weigh it before my readers, thus: