Zcr,. 3 . ^> S c ^ *H Q^ I \ J TTf.TfVUi-*'--*-*' THEOLOGICAL DISSERTATIONS. THEOLOGICAL DISSERTATIONS; CONTAINING, I. The Nature of the Sinai Cove- rant, II. The Character and Privileges of the Apostolic Churches, with an Ex- amination of Dr. Taylor's Key to the Epistles, III. The Nature of Saving Faith. IV. The Law of Nature fufficiently promulgated to the Heathens. V. An Attempt to promote the frequent difpenfing the Lord's Supper. By JOHN ERSKINE, M.A. One of the Ministers of Edinburgh. LONDON: Printed for Edward and Charles Duly, in the Poultry, near the Manfion-Houfe. MDCCLXV. THE PREFACE. W*M*M^H.E three frft. of the foU * (£> xss * lowing Differ tations were ne- Mq ^ &&$( ver before published. The 5^ ®(5@ $£ two Iaft, were printed in slM*)§C*mJk Scotland,, feveral years ago. L flatter myfelf, they fomewhat illuftrate. the fentiments of Heathen Philosophers % and the doctrine and worfhip"- that have prevailed in different ages o£ the Ghriftiam Church. But they are chiefly intended 5 tO: explain and defend certain Scriptural Truths, of which I apprehend many en- tertain falfe 3 , or at. leafr. indiflincl. idsas, & g. a&M vi PREFACE. and yet, which could not have been fuf- ficiently unfolded from the Pulpit,* with- out ufurping the place of what was more nece/Tary. If I have found fault, with certain com- monly received opinions, it is not from af- fectation of fingularity. The growing dif- pofition in Britain and her Colonies, to renounce many important doctrines main- tained by the firft Reformers, indicates an ap- proaching Apoftacy from the Faith of Chrift to another Gofpel. Yet, in lefTer matters, the bed and wifefl have erred, and it cafts no contempt on their memory, but difco- vers a becoming reverence for the Sacred Oracles, to try their opinions by that in- fallible touchilone. I fuppofe, it is above thirteen years, fince a great part of the DifTertation on the Sinai Covenant, was delivered before the Prefby- tery of Glafgow. And it is near fixteen years, fince the fubftance of the Diflerta- tion on Faith, was preached before the late Earl of Leven, his Majefty's High Com- milTioner to the General Affembly. I thought it probable, if my fentiments were unfound, PREFACE. vii unfound, or my reafonings weak and in- conclufive, that one or other of the many Minifters, who heard me on thefe occa- sions, would point it out. That not hap- pening, encourages me now, after fo long delay, to venture abroad thefe meets. Con- fcious, how liable I am to judge amifs, I remain open to conviction. If 1 am charge- able with error, at lead I am not charge- able with dark and artful methods to dif- guife and varnifli it over,, by faying one thing, when I mean to insinuate quite an- other. That Chrift, and the benefits of Redemp- tion, were typified by the Law of Mofes ; and that the fpiritual fenfe of Mofes's Law, though veiled from the Jews in common 3 was in fome meafure revealed to thofe men- tioned, Heb. xi. I firmly believe. I doubt not, there were many more, whofe eyes were opened, under that dark difpenfation, to behold wonderous things out of God's Law. Who they were, or how many, Scripture has not determined, and it would be prefumptuous to conjecture. I ac- *tiB PREFACE. I acknowledge, that hypocrites, whofe hypocrify is unknown, ought to be treated as members of the Chriftian Church.*-— -I account that faith only faving, which is accompanied with an- approbation of the Gofpel Scheme of Salvation in all its parts, which leads us to come to God thro' Ch rift for pardoning mercy and fanctifying grace, which purifies the heart from immoderate love of the world, and produces an un- feigned refpect to all God's Command- ments.' 1 think a divine revelation ab- solutely neceflary, to difcover how guilty creatures may emerge from the ruins of their apoftacy. — —Yet, I cannot fee, that confounding faith with its infeparable at- tendants, or neceflary effects, is confiftenx with the important doctrine of justification by faith only. And infidels, I apprehend, may be greatly hardened in their infidelity., by Chriftian Divines placing the neceflky of revelation on a feeble foundation •, while they argue from a. fact,, which Scripture and Reafon concur in contradicting, even this, that the law. of nature was not fuffi- ciently promulgated to the Heathens. O- thers r PREFACE. IX thers, who difcern not the inconclufivenefs of that argument, may be led to forget the grand defign of the Gofpel, and to mlftake it for a re-publication of nature's law. If my notions of the Jewifh and Chriftian difpenfations are juft, I gratefully acknow- ledge, I was firft led to them by Bimop Warburton's Divine Legation, and Profef- ibr Venema's DifTertations printed at Har- lingen 1731. To thefe learned Writers I would have infcribed the following meets, was it not, that it might have feemed a pleading their great Names in Patronage of what I have wrote. That I could not juftly do. In fome particulars I have dif- fered from them. Probably I may have advanced interpretations of Scripture, and improved my fentiments for purpofes, which neither of them would chufe to adopt. And had it been otherwife, Reafon and Scrip- ture, not human authority, mull determine the queftion, what is Truth. Attention to Scripture fuggefted to me the idea of Faith in the third Diflfertation. I can cite no uninfpired book in fup-- port -x PREFACE. port of it. The late Prefident Edwards, in his excellent Treatife on Religious Affecti- ons, and fbme other writers, have indeed laid down principles, from which it may, in my apprehenfion, be fairly inferred. Yet their ideas of the nature of faith, are To different from mine, that certainly they difcerned not that inference. The carelefs Reader may imagine me favourable to Mr. Sahdiman's Hypothefis. But a little reflec- tion will difcover a very confiderable dif- ference in our fentiments. Mean time, his miftakes about faith are much lefs offen- five, than his difcouraging unconverted fin- ners from ufing the means of grace in or- der to converfion, and his harfhly cen- tring Divines as teaching a fmooth way to hell, who have clearly aflferted thofe truths, the right bdief of which conftitutes men Chriftians. The general argument of the fourth Dif~ fertation appears to me in the fame light, as it did three and twenty years ago, when, 1 nxft published it. But fince that time, I have been, fully, convinced, that, many of the moll celebrated Philofophers entertained; fentiments PREFACE. ml fentiments abfolutely inconfiftent with the belief of the foul's immortality, and of future rewards and punifhments : and have feen considerable caufe to fufpecl that under the devout exprefllons of the Stoic Philofophers, a fyftem was difguifed, nearly allied to that -of Spinofa. I am forry my diftance from the prefs has occafioned fo many typographical errors* Mod of them, I hope, will give little dis- turbance to the attentive ^nd judicious. But I earneftly intreat, that the Reader would at leaft correct the error in p. 137, which di- vefls my argument of all force, nay makes me aflert the very reverfe, of what I in- tended. Edinburgh, jSept. 1. 1764. x:iu ERRATA. Page 8. line 15. for woman read man 10. 1. 10. for ! read : 1 1. 1. 5. from the bottom, for accepting read excepting 22. Notes, L I'for xiii. read xxxi, 46. 1. 2. for , read ? 49. l.z. from the bottom, for promifes read premifTes — Note, for Roat read Raat, and for Derit read Verit 54, Note, dele and 5. e. g. 72. 1. 12. from the bottom, for 13, 60. razi 13. LX. 80. Notes, 1. 3. for 18 read 16 82. Notes, 1. 2.forT\m. xii. rariTim. iii, 12. 84. 1. 4. from the bottom, for or read on 95. Notes, 1. 1. for Milevitonus ran/ Milevitanus 96. Notes, 1. 5. yor 47 ra*i 71 97. 1. 13. from the bottom, for fecit read hcit. 99. Notes, 1. 2.,/or Apul. ra*rf Apol. — 1. 3. for Maynes read Magnes 100. 1. 12. and \yfrom the bottom, for imparatas read Imparatus iol. 1, 8. for lati read loti — ~ Notes, 1, 1. for Penitentia ra i Poenitentia «— Ibid. 1. 6, for Eliberitoni read Eliberitani 103. 1. 9. after But then, add when the Roman Emperors em- braced Chriftianity, Ii2. 1. 17* fir grace to them, he read grace, to them he 124. 1. 5. from the bottom, fir j read . 127. 1. 1 x.from the bottom, for faid read are faid 329. 1. 11. from the bottom, for ftK&toson read f(x.aio.in/uoew)t read iktHjuotruvH — ■« 1. 10. from the bottom, for S)kaiosovh read futcttocrvvH 1. 4. from the bottom, fir vVy^lJ read VVyilQ 130. 1. iK.fir John read James 135. 1. 21. fir bribe read gift 137. 1. 11. from the bottom, fir antecedent read confluent 138. 1. S.from the bottom, fir was readvretc. 177. 1. z — 1, xxiii. 10, — 14. (d) Lev. iii. 17. B 3 the 6 Theological Differtations* the exercife of God's kingly power. The tithes were properly tribute paid him. Their thank- offerings of beafts, wheat, barley, wine, oil, &c. were acknowledgments that they owed thefe blef- fings to his bounty. To conclude this argument, the fidelity and allegiance of the Jews was fecu- red, not by beftowing the influences of the fpirit neceiTary to produce faith and love, (a) but bare- ly by external difplays of majefty and greatnefs, calculated to promote a flavifh fubjeclion, rather than a chearful filial obedience. For this reafon it is foretold, Hof. ii. 16. that in gofpel times men fhould not call God Baali, i. e. my matter, but Ifhi, i. e. my hufband. In- deed God was a hufband to the Jewifh church, {h) and he is to the Chriflian church a Matter and Lord (c). But the paflage imports at leaft thus much, that God, who in the Jewifh difpenfa- tion had chiefly difplayed the grandeur, diftance, and feverity of a Matter, would, in the Chriflian difpenfation, chiefly difplay the affeclion and fa- miliarity of a hufband and friend. § 3. The party, with whom God made this covenant, was the Jewifh nation, not exclud- ing thefe unregenerate, and inwardly difaffec- ted to God and goodnefs. In the original re- cords of the Sinai covenant (d), all the people are exprefsly faid to enter into it, and yet the greater part of that people, were ftrangers to the enlightening and converting influences of the fpi- rit, and to a principle of inward love to God and holinefs {e). The leaft acquaintance with the hiftory of the Jews, and even of that genera- (a) Deut. xxix. 3, 4.. (b) Jer. xxxi. 32. (c) Mat. xxui, 8. (d) Exod. xix. 8. xxiv. 3. Deut. v. 1, — 3. (e) Deut. xxix. 3. v. 29. tion, theological Differ tations. y tion, which came out of Egypt, and with whom the Sinai covenant was firft eftablifhed (#), may fatisfy us, how rare a thing true religion was a - mong them. Indeed, had they been blefled with deliverance from the dominion of fin, and with conformity to the image of God, it would be: abfolutely unaccountable, that when urged to obedience, this more excellent 'blefling fhould be wholly overlooked j and their deliverance front Egypt reprefented as the chief thing, whereby God had become their God, and laid them un- der obligations to walk, in his ftatutes (b). On account of the perverfe obftinate difpofi- tion of God's antient covenant people, Hofeah is commanded, to take unto him a wife of whore- doms, i. e. one, who, though then a virgin, was of a lafcivious difpofuion, and would break her marriage vow : and to love a woman, be- loved of her friend, yet an adulterefs, i. e. one who would repay her hufband's fondnefs and af- fection with adulterous treachery (c). For the fame reafon, the Sinai covenant is compared to a prifon (d)^ in which fubjects difaffe&ed to their prince, are fhut up to prevent their rebelling, and to a fchool- matter (*), by whofe authority chil- dren are reftrained from fins and follies, to which their natural difpofition would otherwife carry them. And thofe under the Sinai covenant, are reprefented as groaning under a yoke (f). (a) jer. xxxi, 32. Ezc-k. xx. 10, 11. (b) Ex. xix. 4. xx. 2. xxix. 46. Lev. xi. 45. xix. 36. xxii. 33. xxv. 38, 42, 55. Numb. x?. 41. Deut. iv. 20. 34. 2 Sam. vii. 23. Hof. xii. 9. (c) Hof. i. 2. iii. 1. (d) Gal. iii, 23. (e) Ibid. ver. 24. CO If- ix. 3. Hi. 2. B 4 Further, 8 Theological Biffertations. Further, the Sinai covenant was made, not only with thofe who came out of Egypt, but with all fucceeding generations that were to fpring from them (a). Defcent from Ifrael gave any one a title to the benefits of this covenant, for which reafon the children even of unregene- rate Ifraelites, were circumcifed the eighth day, and were faid to be born unto God (b). It was this that led the Jews, in our Lord's days, to boaft Co much of their defcent from Abraham (c). And. probably it was to allay this pride in Nico- demus, that our Lord tells him he muft be born again ; as he fpeaks of the water of life to, the Samaritan woman who boaired of Jacob's well ; and to the rich young woman of treafures in hea- ven. Hence Paul tells us, that he had, whereof be might trujl in the fiefn^ i. e. efteemed himfelf entitled to the carnal benefits of the Sinai cove- nant, feeing he was of the jhek of Ifrael ', and an Helrciv of the Hebrews (d). Now this plainly fuppofes, that all of the flock of Ifrael were in- terefted in that covenant. Nay, thefe adopted by a Jew, born in his houfe, or bought with his money, were circumcifed, as a token that they were entitled to the fame benefits (*). Profelytes too, in virtue of their own deed, had the fame claim: and the children of profelytes, though cir- cumcifed at an age, when incapable of know- ing what was done to them, had a like claim through the deed and will of their parents. Sons of God under that typical difpenfation were born of bloccl, i. e. lawful wedlock j or of the will of the fitjhy i.e. of uncleannefs, as Pharez from" the {a) Deut. xxix. 14, 15. (b) Ezek.xvi. 20. (c) Mat. iii. 9. John viii. 33. (d) Phil. iii. 4, 5. (e) Gen. xv)i. 12, 13. Seidell de Jur. Nat. & Gent. 1. 5. c. n. inceft theological Differ tations. 9 incefr. of Judah and Thamar; or from the will of tnen, i. e. became fons of God, by their own deed, or by the, deed of their parents, matters or adopters. The difference of the Chriftian dif- penfation from the Sinai covenant, in thefe re- fpe&s, is hinted, John i. 13. and 1 Peter i. 23. and in that celebrated expreffton of Tertullian, Chriftiani fiutit, noti nafcuntur. It needs no proof, that men might be interefled in the bleilings of the Sinai covenant, in any of the ways mentioned above, and yet notwithstanding be flaves of Satan, and dead in trefpafTes and fins. When God promifed the land of Canaan to Abraham and his fzed, circumcifion was infiitu- ted for this among other purpofes, to (hew that defcent from Abraham was the foundation of his pofterities right to thefe bleffings. But, in g^of- pel times, when not the children of the flefh, but the children of the promife are counted for a feed, Rom. ix. 8. in confequence of this the circum- cifion of the flefh is of no more avail, and the circumcifion made without hands, in putting off the body of the fins of the flefh by the circumci- fion of Chrift becomes neceffary, Col. ii. ir. Rom. ii. 28. The promife of long life, in the land of Canaan, was therefore annexed with pe- culiar propriety to the precept of honouring fa- ther and mother, to remind the Jews that they owed the pofTeflion of that land to the piety of their more diftant forefathers, gratitude to whom would be belt teftifled by a dutiful behaviour to their immediate parents who now repreiented them. Had not God known, that the, greater part of thefe, with whom he entered into covenant at Siriai, were an obftinate, huff-necked, and hard- B 5 hearted. JO Theological Differ tations. hearted generation, there would have been no occafton for permitting polygamy and divorce, and allowing the avenger of blood to kill the manflayer. Thefe laws evidently fuppofe their corruption, and connive at it, in fo far as to free it from temporal punifhment. The fpiritual covenant-relation, between God and true believers, can never be diffolved (a). Thefe then interefted in the Sinai covenant were not true believers ! for they are charged with fpi- ritual whoredom and adultery, and with break- ing the covenant like Adam (b) y and God is faid to give them a bill of divorce, and put them away (c). § 4, But it will more clearly appear, who were interefted in the Sinai covenant, by confi- dering, who were allowed to partake of the feals of it. Now circumcifion belonging to all the Jews in common, the Sinai covenant, of which it was a feal, muft belong to them too. Circumciilon, I acknowledge was alfo a feal of the righteouf- nefs of faith. But it was not fo to all who re- ceived it. As derived from Abraham, it was to all who imitated his faith a feal of the covenant of grace : as inferted in the ceremonial law a feal of the Sinai covenant. Or rather, it was to Abraham, a feal both of an external and fpi- ritual covenant. And therefore, even to thefe, who were only interefted in the external cove- nant, it was of ufe. As all the feed of Jacob were circumcifed, fo none of them were excluded for want of inward holinefs, from the paflbver and other faederal (a) Jer. xxxi. 34, 33. xxxii. 40. If. lv. 3. (b) Jer. HXiw'. 32. Hof. vi. 7. (c) Ifa. 1. Ij a. Jer. iii. 8. Huf. ijw I£< rites Theological Differ t aliens. 1 1 rites of the Jewifh church. Bad men might there- fore be then in covenant with God : for God would not have permitted any, to partake of the feals of a covenant, in which they were no ways interefted. Every one that was not ceremonially unclean, or on a journey, and forebore to keep the paffover, was to b£ cut off by death from God's people (a). Depravity of heart, or wick- ednefs of life, did not exempt from this obliga- tion. And even thefe, who being unclean by reafon of a dead body, or in a journey afar off* could not folemnize the pailover on the four- teenth day of the firft month, were required to do it, on the fourteenth day of the fecond month. So that, on one or other of thefe days, every If- raelite whatfoever was bound to folemnize it.. And therefore, though Chrifl: had told his dif- ciples, that one of their number had a devil, they don't defire him to point out the guilty per- fon, which, doubtlefs, they would have done, bad an immoral character, as much unfitted, as ceremonial uncleannefs for eating the paflbyer. Three times a year, even at the feafts of un- leavened bread, of harvefr, and of ingathering, all the males of Ifrael, w r ere required to appear before the Lord (b). The Jewifh Rabbles men-, tion eleven clafTes of perfons, whom this piecept. did jTot bind, as the blind, lame, &c. but infh-ad of accepting men of wicked hearts and lives, they exprefsly tell us, that all, fave thefe eleven. clai-_ fes, were bound by that precept (c). Every feventh year, at the feafr of tabernacles,. all Ifrael, man, woman, and child, were bound . {a) Num. ix. 13. (b) Maimonides tit. Chagi- gp, c. .2. apud Selden de Synedr. Vet. Heb..i. 1. c. 7. (0 Ibid. B 6 to 12 Theological Differ tat ions. to appear before the Lord (a). And the Jewifh doctors, do not except from this precept excom- municate or immoral perfons"f£). Agreeably to this, we no where read, that either prince, or prieft, or prophet, excluded any perfon on account of moral pollution, from facrifices, from the paffover, or from other fe- deral rites and folemnities. Nay, Jofiah, that pious prince, commanded all the people in com- mon to keep the paffover to the Lord God (c), though he knew too much of their idolatries and other wickednelTes in the reign of his predecef- for, to imagine that the hearts of all his fubjecls were right with God, and fincerely devoted to his fervice. No rebukes however are given to the princes or priefts on that account, in the writings of the prophets, which doubtlefs would have been done, had their conduct in this parti- cular been blame-worthy. But the prophets well knew, that man could have no right to preclude any from that, which the law of God allowed them, I fhould rather have faid, under the feve- red penalties enjoined upon them. The Sadducees were men of the moft danger- ous principles and abandoned lives. Yet they were allowed to facriflce and partake of thepafTover. Nay, fome of them were advanced to the high priefthood. The Pharifees, their mortal ene- mies, faw this, without ever oppofing it as un- lawful. So fenfible were they, that the law of Mofes afforded them no handle for fuch an oppo- iition. (a) Deut. xiii. 10,-12. (b) Maimonides tit. Cnagiga, c. 3. apud Selden, 1. c. (c) % Kings xxiii. 21. 2 The Theological Differ tations. i$ The Pharifees were mightly offended at our Lord, for eating and drinking with publicans and finners, and would have efteemed themfelves blame- worthy, had they done it {a). Yet the felf-righteous Pharifee and immoral Publican go together to the temple-worfhip, and the former does not look upon himfelf as defiled by the pre- fence of the latter (b). Perfons ceremonially im- pure polluted any garment they touched, or any place they entered. Moral impurity had no fuch effect, elfe ad ultrefles would not have been brought into a place fo holy as the temple {c). Our Lord and his apoftles were accounted, both by Phariiees and Saducees, as the vilefr. of men, the filth of the earth, and the off-fcourings of all things. Yet no attempt was made to debar them from the facrifices or facraments of the Jewifh church. Doubtlefs, the malice of their enemies would have prompted them to have inflicled that cenfure, had it been ever inflicled for error or vice. But they, who blamed our Lord for eat- ing with unwafhen hands, did not blame him for entering the temple, and partaking of the paffo- ver. And they, who were angry with Paul, for bringing Greeks into the temple, exprefs no dif- pleafure at him for entering it himfelf. Our Lord, who knew the unbelief of his bre- thren, and their worldly carnal difpofkion, would not have bid them go up to the feaft of taber- nacles, John vii. 5, — 8. if the obligation to at- tend that folemnity, had reached only to the re- generate. Hezekiah's not obferving the paffover the firfr. month, becaufe the priefts had not fanctified (a) Mat. ix. 11. (b) Luke xviii, 10. (0 Num. v. John viii. 2, 3. them- 1 4 Theological Differ tations. themfelves fufficiently (a), is no proof that in- ward holinefs was neceflary to qualify for that fo- lemnity. For fanctified, in that hiftory, means no more than free from ceremonial uncleannefs, which many bad men might, and many good men might not be. It is readily acknowledged, that men of bad lives, at leaft after the return from the Babylo- nifh captivity, were excommunicated and thruft out of th? fy nagogues. But it mould be remem- bred, thefe fy nagogues were only private focie- ties of a late original, and perfons thruft out of them ftill had accefs to the temple-worihip. Ex- communication precluded men from certain' pri- vate devotional exercifes, and from free and fa- miliar intercourfe with their brethren. It depri- ved of certain marks of honour and refpect, and probably was attended with fomething of pofitive difgrace. And therefore, fome of the chief ru- lers were afraid to confefs Chrift, leaft they fbould be put out of the fynagogue, becaufe they loved the praife of men, more than the praife of God (b). One circumftance of difgrace was, that excommunicate perfons entered the temple, and went cut of it, at a different gate from o- thers. Yet ftill they had an undoubted right to facriiice and partake of the paiTover, juft as the EiTenes had, who facrificed in a part of the tem- ple feparate from the reft of the Jews (c). What- ever therefore were the effects of excommunica- tion, exclufion from any public exercife of wor- ship, could be none of them. The hiftory of our Lord and his apoftles is a demonftfatidn of this. The Jews had decreed to excommunicate any who fhould confefs Jefus to be the Chrift (d): (a) i Chrori. xxx. 3. (/>) John xii. 42 4 43. (t) Selden ubi fupra. (d) John ix. *z. They Theological Differ tations. 15 They paffed that fentence againft the blind man whofe fight Chrift had reftored (#), and doubt- lefs againft many, if not all others in like cir- cumftances. For Chrift warns his difciples to expedl this fentence (£), and the fear of it pre- vented many from^rofelling their faith in him (c). Yet all this notwithftanding, the apoftles of Chrift, and thoufands of believing Jews zealous of the law (i), had as free accefs to the temple for public exercifes of devotion, as the infidel Jews had (), and, in other law*, it is evi- dent from the reafcn of the thing. Thus the prohibitions of fowing a field with mingled feed, (a) Ezra ix. 10. Neh. xiii. 25. (b) Lev. xviiL 3, 24.. Numb. xv. 39. Deut, xii. 2. xiv. i, 2. and 20 Theological Dlffertations. and wearing garments mingled with linen and woolen (#), though they were to be obferved in the literal (enfe, feem mainly intended to dif- courage the joining the worfhip of idols with the worfhip of the true God, the intermarrying with heathens, and, above all, unnatural ways of gratifying luft. The Teething a kid in his mo- ther's milk (£), the killing a cow or ew and their young in one day (<:), and the taking the dam and her young at once (d)^ were forbid in order to encourage mercy and humanity. And there- fore the laft of thefe precepts is backed with this reafon, that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayeft prolong thy days ( give fome delineation by types and prophecies of the promifed Meilias, and the bleflings of his purchafe -, that when the Meflias fhould come, the exac~l correfpondence of the gofpel-difpenfa- tion, to what had been delineated fo many ages before, might afford evidence, that both the Oid Tertament and the New were of divine original. But it would have been highly improper, that the delineation fhould have been fo plain, as to be underftood by the people of the Jews, at the time it was given, or at any other period, while the ceremonial law remained in force. The. knowledge that their religion was only a fhadow of good things to come, would have greatly lef- fened their efteem of its excellency ; nay, would have rendered the yoke of the ceremonial law fo galling and burdenfome to them, that they would have been forward, without the divine permiffion to fhake it off. But perhaps the faying fo much upon this head can hardly admit an apology, af- ter the clear light in which it has been fet by Bi- fhop Warburton in his Divine Legation^ and the au- thor of The argument of the Divine Legation fairty fated, and of the free and candid examination of the Bijhop of London's elegant fermons. My only plea is, that the beft books do not always hap- pen to fall into the hands of thofe who perufe meaner compofitions. And it feemed to me lefs C 4 culpable, 32 Theological Differ i aliens. culpable, to adopt fentiments, which I could not improve ; than to do wrong to my argument by omitting an effential branch of it, and perhaps aifo to raife fufpicions in fome of my readers, that I declined meddling with a knotty objection, merely becaufe I was confeious I could not re- folve it. Upon the whole, I firmly believe that Canaan was a type of the heavenly inheritance. But this only proves, that it reprefented heaven, as the Jews who pofiefftd it, reprefented the heirs of heaven. It does not prove, that the land flowing with milk and honey, was bellowed, to reveal and feal to its inhabitants fpiritual and hea- venly bleflings. § 4. The unchangeable faith fulnefs of God is another proof, that fpiritual and heavenly blef- fings were not conveyed by the Sinai covenant. Antecedently to that asra, Mofes and fome others cf the children of Ifrael were under a covenant of grace. The Sinai covenant therefore being made with Mofes,- as veil is with the body of thejewifh people, Excel, xxxlv, 27. ccu!d not bo; a covenant of woiks, for obtaining eternal life. An oppofite way of falvation by free grace, had been cftablifhed long before, which no conftitu- tion or covenant could abolifh. " The cove- *' nant that w T as confirmed before of God in 4< Chrifr, the law which was four hundred and ** thirty years after, cannot difanul, thai it fhould " make the promife of none effect." Gal. iii. 17. The gofpcl covenant is not according to the covenant, made with the Jews, when they came out of Egypt (v)i but eflentially different from it, being a better covenant, eftablifhed on better promifes (w). Therefore as the gofpel covenant () I John ii. 8. Heb.. xii. i2, Ift. ix. 2. (c) z Pet. ii. 10. C 5 « fhall 34 Theological Differ tat ions. 46 fhall be the covenant, that I will make with " the houfe of Ifrael, after thofe days, faith the M Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, Ci and write it in their hearts, and they fhall The law, or Sinai covenant, made nothing perfect, that honour being referved to the bringing in of a better hope (e). It could not give life (/). It could (d) Gal. iii. 17. (0 Heb. vii. 19. (/) Gal. iii. 21. not theological Differ tations. 37 not give righteoufnefs (g). Sins committed un- der it, as to their moral guilt, and fpiritual and eternal punifhment, were forgiven only in con- fequence of the New Teftament, confirmed by the death of Chrift (/?), without whole death the righteoufnefs of God in forgiving thefe fins could not have been manifefted (V). So that without us, the Old Teftament faints were not made per- m oj. U-i SECTION III. T is now time to inveftigate the condi- tion, the performance of which entitled to the bleffings of the Sinai covenant. This was no other, than an abftinence from fervile work on the Sabbath ; freedom from legal impurities and grofs vices ; an offering the facri- fices prefcribed in the law; in time of war, the depending on God alone for fuccefs, and not hav- ing recourfe to horfes, chariots, or alliance with idolatrous ftates [k) ; and, in general, obedience to the letter of the law, even when it did not flow from a principle of faith and love. A temporal monarch claims from his fubjecls, only outward honour and obedience. God there- fore, acting in the Sinai covenant, as King of the Jews, demanded from them no more. Indeed, no other, and more fpiritual obedience could be expected from them. God had not pro- mifed in that covenant, to render them inwardly (g) 2. Cor. iii. 9. (b) Heb. ix. 15. (i) Rom. iii. 25. (j) Heb. xi. 40. (k) See DifTerta- tion 4, at the end of Biihop Sherlock on Prophecy. holy, 3 8 Theological Differ tations. holy. And if we attend either to the general de- pravity of human nature, or the particular per- verfenefs of their temper, we (hall eafily be con- vinced, they could not render themfelves holy. If then inward holinefs was the condition of the Sinai covenant, the condition of it was fome- thing impoffible to be fulfilled. And will not this reflect on the wifdom and goodnefs, nay, even on the juftice of God. I acknowledge, God, as Creator, may juftly require obedience, though the creature has rendered itfelf morally incapable to obey. But to fuppofe him formally entring into a covenant, the condition of which he knew, could not poffibly be performed, is a fhocking abfurdity. If it was one of God's de- figns in the Sinai covenant, to advance the tem- poral welfare of the ponerity of Abraham his friend ; tell me, was that welfare fecured, by fufpending it upon that obedience to the moral law, which God well knew they neither could nor would yield ? was that covenant any real privilege or advantage, the bleffings of which were offered on impoflible terms, and confe- quently could never be enjoyed ? would it have been confiftent with fincerity, to ufher in fuch a covenant, with that kind declaration, / am the Lord thy God f To what wife purpofe, fuch pomp and fhow, and fo ftrong and numerous profefiions of favour and good-will, if men are prescribed a way to happinefs, in which none of them can walk, and confequently by which none of them can ever arrive at it ? The temporal nature of the promifes, in the Sinai covenant, proves the fame thing. Would that God, who, with a pleafant countenance, beholds the upright, require inward holinefs, and only Theological Differ tations. 39 only promife outward bleflings ; require the foul* ami reward only the bodyj require the creature's love, and yet give it no undoubted token of his love ; require defires of communion and fellow- ship with himfelf, and yet not gratify them ; re- quire inward devotion, and promife that, which will be the lefs valued by us, in proportion as our inward devotion is more elevated and refined? The hire being fervile, the work rnuft be fo too* God will never give any lefs than he claims from them. It is abfurd,' to fuppofe any thing the condition of a covenant, which is not aflerted to be a con- dition, in the covenant itfelf. And it is equally abfurd, to underfland the terms of a covenant otherwife, than in the clear, proper, direct (en(e of the words, wherein they are exprefled. Now the Mofaical law, obedience to which all acknow- ledge was the condition of the Sinai covenant, is employed in directing the outward conduct, not the affections of the heart. It prefcribes and for- bids a variety of actions, while it feldom enjoins the virtues that adorn the inner man, or cautions againft the vices that defile it. If holinefs refults from conformity to a law, the Mofaic law, as a condition of the Sinai co- venant, can only require outward purity. For it terms all holy,, who yielded an outward and ceremonial obedience, how bad foever their hearts might be. Paul's reafoning, Gal. iii. 11, 12. is another proof of this. " Bui that no man is juflified by ), and that it is the blood of Jefus, not thefe types of it, which purges the conference from dead works, and, in a pro- per fenfe, redeems the tranfgrefiions that were under the firft covenant (q). Indeed fo far were the facrifices under the law from expiating heart- fins, that they did not free the confeience even from the guilt contracted by outward fins. In thefe refpeSs they were weak and unprofitable (r). They only averted temporal judgments, removed the hinderances of an outward correfpondence between God and the Jews, reflored their right to the temple- worfhip, and preferved to them, notwithflanding their fins, the benefits of the Si- nai covenant. Sacrifices therefore removing only the outward pollution, not the inward guilt, contracted by finful actions, could have no effedl (0) Lev. iv. z. (p) Heb. ix. 13. (q) HeW vii, 18, 19. is. 9, 14-, 15. (r) Heb. vii. 18. as 44- Theological Differ t a tions. as to inward vices, from which no outward pol- lution was contracted. This obfervation may throw fome light on Acls xiii. 39. " By him all *' that believe are juftified, from all things from ** which ye could not be juflified by the law of ), which we know was no other than the gofpel obfcurely revealed (/). In confirmation of this I might obferve, that the (g) Deut. xxix. 12. (/>) Deut. xxix. 13. (/) Gal. ;:i. i6 3 17, 2. circum- 'Theological Dijfertations. 51 circumcifion of the heart to love God, or, in other words, fpecial faving grace, though no promife of the Sinai covenant, is clearly promi- sed in the covenant, which was revealed to Ifrael in the land of Moab (7) ; and part of the words of that covenant (£), are cited by Paul (I), as re- lating to the righteoufnefs offered us in the gof- pel (m). I would not however infer from thefe chapters, that God meant to unfold to the Jews the nature of gofpel bleffings. He only gave them a general intimation of better things to come, binding them to believe and long for that feafon, when the event (hould unfold the fenfe of thefe predictions. As poflibly what I have faid may not fully re- move the difficulty, I would further obferve, that the laws of Mofes in general had a Spiritual and a literal meaning. The righteoufnefs upon which the temporal profperity of Ifrael depended, was the righteoufnefs of the letter of the law. The righteoufnefs through which believers are entitled to eternal life, is the righteoufnefs of the fpirit of the law. And as the earthly Canaan was a type of heaven, fo that external obedience which gave a right to it, prefigured that perfect obedience of the Redeemer, whereby alone we are entitled to the heavenly blifs. The law therefore, in its fpiritual fenfe, required inward, nay, even per- fect obedience. And poflibly the prohibition of coveting, and the precept of loving God with all the heart, were left in the letter of the lav/, to lead good men to the fpirit of it : the very letter (j) Deut. xxx. 6. (k) Deut. xxx. n, — 14. {/) Rom. x. 5, — 10. (m) Bull's Harm. Apofc. p. 77, and 78. opemm edit. Grabii. D 2 of 52 theological Differ tations. of thefe precepts, when taken in their full em- phefis, reaching to the inmoft thoughts and in- tents of the heart, and forbidding the leaft finful defire. This explains in what fenfe Paul afTerts («), that iin taking occafion by the commandment, wrought in him all manner of concupifcence, yea, deceived him and flew him. Perceiving as an ingenious congregational minifter well re- marks (. 28, 29, by Theological Differ fattens. 53 by death, nor expiated by facfifice (p) : and fince provifion was made in the Sinai covenant even for defects in outward obedience, facrifices being appointed for all offences, that were not com- mitted prefumptuoufly and with a high hand (q]u The precept therefore, ) See § 3. of this fe£Hon. (q) Numb. xv. a?., — 3 1 * (r) 1 Kings xiv- 8. (j) 2 Kings xxiii. D 3 nual 54 Theological Dijfertations. nual festivals, when all the males of Ifrael ap- peared before the Lord, " their enemies fhould ** not defire their land (/)," becaufe God, by an extraordinary providence, was to reftrain them at thefe times from attempting to invade it. Thefe remarks will ferve to illuftrate, what is meant by the flefh and by the fpirit in Paul's epif- tles to the Romans and Galatians. Mr. Glafs has obferved (&), that the letter of the law, or the law in that carnal view without the fpirit of It in which it is fet before us, Rom. vii. i, 5, 6. the ftate of the nation under it, and the fuitable difpofition of that people to perform the national lighteoufnefs, and to enjoy the national happi- nefs annexed to it as its reward, is called the £efh. In fome Scriptures the flefh means bon- dage under the Sinai covenant (v) ; and the con- dition of that covenant is defcribed as the law of a carnal commandment (w), and as confiding in carnal ordinances (x)i The rewards alfo of that covenant were carnal, and fo was the difpofition of the Jewi{h people. Meat and drink were in their eiteem chief bleflings of the kingdom of God (y). Their god was their belly (%). And hence of old they gathered themfelves for corn and wine () Heb. vii. 16. (x) Heb. ix. 10. (y) Rom. xiv. 17. (2) Phil. iii. 13. (a) Hof. vii. 14, (£) Jo. vi* 2d. blifh Theological Differ tations. 55 blifh their own righteoufnefs, and to enjoy an earthly happinefs, but to be cloatbed with a Re- deemer's righteoufnefs, and through him to attain the bleiTings of a fpiritual and divine life. Thofe > on the other hand, are frill in the ftefh, and walk after it, who hope that their Chriftian profeffion and outward religious obfervances will entitle them to the divine favour ! and who defire tem- poral profperity, in one fhape or other, more than begun communion with God, and confor- mity to his blefled image here, and the uninter- rupted enjoyment of him for ever hereafter* This is the old man, corrupt according to the deceit- ful lufts, which none put off, till they have been taught the truth as it is in Jefus {c). The re- mains of this old man occafion the ilrife in belie- vers between the flefh and the fpirit (d). Even Paul himfelf found his members, or his frame and conftitution as a fon of apoftate Adam, ftrongly inclining and difpofmg him, to truft in his own righteoufnefs, and to feek for happinefs in tem- poral enjoyments. And hence he bitterly com- plains of a law, that when he would do good evil was prefent with him, and of another law in his members, even the law of fin, warring againft the law of his mind (e). SECTION IV. § 1. pOSSIBLY fome may imagine, the i A jecl: of the preceding fections is of v great importance. The attentive perufal of them, fub- no (c) Ephef. iv. 21,-24. Col. in. 9,— 11. (d) GaL v. 5, i6j— 18.. (e} Rom. vii, 21, 23, D 4 will 5 6 Theological Differ I atmn. will I hope convince fuch, that juft ideas of the Sinai covenant, throw confiderable light on many important pafiages of facred writ, f now add, that they remove fome plaufible objections againft the faith once delivered to the faints, and afford convincing evidence, that the Sinai covenant was of divine original, but that the Mefiias is now come, and had authority to annul it. The preceding pages will guide to the mean- ing of feveral texts, which have been often urged for the unfcriptural tenets of j unification by the deeds of the law, and of the attainablenefs of perfection- in a prefent life. I fhall not trefpafs on the patience of my readers, by fpending time in illuftrating what is fo obvious. I refer tjiem to feclion iii. § 4. of this Differtation. Ezek. xviii. 24, 26. has been often appealed to as an evidence, that faints may fall from grace, and eternally peri(h. " When the righteous ic turneth away from his righteoufnefs, and com- " mitteth iniquity, and doth according to all the 6 * abominations that the wicked man doth, fhall 46 he live ? all his righteoufnefs that he hath cc done, fhall not be mentioned : in his trefpafs fct that he hath trefpafled, and in his fin that he ). That I have given a juft reprefentation of Eze- kiel's meaning, the reader may be further con- (£-) 2 Chronu xxiv. throughout. (h) Hi. li. 6. vinced, Theological Differ 'tationsi 59 vinced, by comparing thefe nearly parallel Scrip- tures, Jer. xviii. 7, — 10. xxii. 2, — 5. § 2. If the above account of the Sinai covenant is true, it is a demonftration of its divine origi- nal. Mofes affures the Ifraelites, that their pro- fperity mould be invariably determined by their ob- fervance or neglect of his laws : that, when they were faithful to thefe, every thing fhould go well with them; and that, when unfaithful, a flood of calamities mould overwhelm them. No principles of human policy could have dictated fuch alFu- rances. So wife a Lawgiver, would never have made them, had he not known, that the han& of God mould vifibly appear, beftowing bleiiings, and inflicting punifhments, in execution of thefe promifes and threats. Far lefs would he, under pretence of thefe extraordinary providences, have deprived his people of the natural means of their fecurity and defence, I mall fay nothing of the- years of jubilee and fabbatic years, or of the ob- liging all the males thrice in the year to come up to Jerufalem, and thus to leave their frontiers ex- poled to holtile invafion. I mall confine myfelf to one law. Tho' their neighbours were power- ful and ambitious, and well provided with horfes and chariots of war, in which the ftrength of the antient militia- chiefly confided, God prohibited them the ufe of thefe dreadful engines of destruc- tion, and enjoined them, when they mould pre- vail againft their enemies in battle, to hamftring their horfes and burn their chariots with fire, af- furing them that his protection, while they thus manifefled their truft in it, fhourd more than (u\>~ %>\y the place of both (/'), Had Mofes been an f (i), Deut. xvii. 16. Jofh. xi. 6. Deut. xx. u D 6 im> 60 theological Bijfertations, importer, he was not mad enough, to have en- cumbered his body of laws with a conftitution, obedience to which muft have infallibly bewrayed the deceit. But the argument acquires full force, when we view the event of this ftrange conftitu- tion. The judges of Xfrael, who had neither horfes nor chariots, nor numerous armies, by faith in God fubdued kingdoms, out of weaknefs were made flrong, waxed valiant in fight, and turned to flight the armies of the Aliens (j). De- borah, who was fent on foot into the valley, de- livers Ifrael from Sifera, who had nine hundred chariots of iron (.£). Gideon, with three hun- dred men, deftroys the numerous hofts of Mi- dian (■/). When David had taken from Hadade- zar a thoufand chariots and feven hundred horfe- men, he houghed all the chariot horfes, except a hundred (m) : doubtlefs, referving thefe, not for flrength in war, for then he would not have de- stroyed nine out of ten, but for irate in peace. Hence Abfalom, affecting the pomp of a King, prepared chariots and horfes, and fifty men to run before him (») ; and yet, in the day of bat- tle, we find him mounted on a mule. A flrong proof, that the Jews had not yet begun to vio-^ late the divine precept ; by ufmg horfes and cha- riots in war. David, in whofe reign the king- dom of Ifrael was advanced to its utmoft glory, could fay, " Some truft in chariots and fome in 44 borfes, but we will remember the name of ii me Lord our God (0)." Solomon was the fir'A" who violated this precept (/>). But troubles (j) Heb. xi. 34- (*) J ud g- »▼• 10, 13. v. 15. (I) Judg. vij. (;;/) 2 Sam. viii. 4. (») a. Sara. >;v. 1. (?) Pfal. xx. 7. (p) 1 Kings iv. 26. foon Theological Differ tations. 61 foon overtook him. The Edomite on the one fide, and the King of Damafcus on the other in- flated him. And this new military force, inftead' of enabling him and his fucceflbrs to quell their enemies, enfeebled and greatly deftroyed Ifrael* by depriving them of the divine protection. God indeed, in that period, granted his people fome very fignal deliverances : but it was, when having no ftrength of their own on which to rely, they had recouife to God alone for protection. See the cafe of Afa, 2 Chron. xiv. 9, — 11 : of Jehofaphat, 2 Chron. xx. 12, 17 : and of He- zekiah, 2 Kings xviii. 23. and xix. 35. It is evident from many paflages in the prophets, that alliance with idolatrous princes, and the warlike ufe of chariots and horfes, was accounted a re- nunciation of God's protection, and an infallible forerunner of ruin. See Ifa. ii. 7, — 9. xxxi. 1, — 3. Hof. xiv. 3. I am indebted for thefe re- marks to Bifhop Sherlock's fourth DifTertation at the end of his Difcourfes on Prophecy. And as many who read and admire his elegant Sermons, are unacquainted with that performance, I make no apology for . tranfcribing them. The fame author has juftly obferved, in his fifth Difcourfe on Prophecy, that whenever it was necelTary to chafren the Jews for their iniquities, their cala- mities were prophetically defcribed to them, thae they might not be tempted by their adverilty to think, that the gods of the nations had prevailed againfl them, but might know that the hand of their own God was upon them. See Ifa. xlviii-. 3, 4, 5. Indeed, without fuch fpecial predicti- ons, every interpofition of providence, to exe- cute the fandtions of the Mofaic law, was a new proof, that God himfelf was the author of that law 9 6i Theological Differ tations. law, and had annexed to it thefe fan&ions. But the argument for the divine legation of Mofes, both from the original fan£tions of his law, and the execution of thefe fandtions, will probably be placed in a fuller and ftronger light, when the Bi- fhop of Gloucefter fhali favour the public with his third Volume. § 3. Though I write to Chriftians, and there- fore have often appealed to the New Teflament : yet I think the paflages I have cited from Mofes and the Prophets, abundantly juftify the forego- ing accout of the Sinai covenant. And, if they do, it greatly concerns the Jews, to confider the confequence : even this, that the promifed Mef- iias is now come, vefted with authority to abro- gate the Sinai covenant, and to introduce a new and better difpenfation. Old Teftament prophecy plainly afferts, that the dominion of the Meflias was not to be con- fined to the land of Judea, but to extend to the heathen : that all the ends of the earth fhould be invited to fubjecl themfelves to his government : and that nations the moft diftant fhould fhare in the bleflings of his kingdom. It was impofftble for remote nations to keep the law of Mofes, a great part of the worfhip prefcribed by it, being confined to the temple at Jerufalem, and all the males being obliged by that law to appear there thrice every year. The promife therefore, that the Lord fhould be King over all the earth, is equivalent to a prediction, that the ceremonial law fhould be abolifhed. A profperous pofleilion of the land of Canaan was a chief blefling of the Sinai covenant, and a bleiling infured by promife to all God's antient people. But it was impoiftble, that the fubjects of Theological Differ tations. 6$ of the Meflias, who were to be fcattered through the whole habitable earth, fhould fhare in this blefling. " The land would have been too nar- ** row by reafon of the inhabitants, the place too " ftrait for them to dwell in." The extent of the Meffia's kingdom rendered it impoffible, that Canaan fhould contain all his fubjecls. And therefore, under his government, the covenant in which that land was entailed on God's people, as a reward of their obedience, muft be abro- gated. Let me appeal to the candid Jew, is not the Chrtflian difpenfation, in its own nature more ex- cellent than the Mofaic ? Is freedom from grofs fins, and the performance of external rites and ce- remonies, an obedience equally worthy of reward, with the perfect obedience of him, who was holy, harmlefs, undeflled, and continually went about doing good ? Or does a quiet poffeffion of the land of Canaan, deferve to be compared, with all fpirituai and heavenly bleflings in Chrift Jefus ? Surely neither of thefe can, with the leaft mo- defty, be pretended. Is then impofture more ex- cellent than truth ? Did a falfe pretender to the character of Meffias, contrive a fcheme, which exceeds in glory that difpenfation, for whofe di- vine original Jews, as well as Chriftians, warmly contend ? Say not, it is abfurd, that men mould be entitled to reward through the righteoufnefs of another. Of all men in the world, Jews muft plead this, with the worft grace. Their confi- dence in God is chiefly built on their defcent from pious anceftors. And Mofes, their divinely infpired lawgiver, exprefsly afTerts, that the pe- culiar favours conferred on them, were not ow- ing to their fuperjor worth and excellency, but were 64 Theological Biffertations. were a teftimony of God's afFe&ion to their wor- thy forefathers (q). If God faw meet, in tefti- mony of his love to Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob, and as a reward of their obedience, defective and imperfect as it was, to beftow upon their natural feed a variety of outward bleflings : wherefore fhould it be thought a thing incredible, that the God and Father of our Lord Jefus, in teftimony of his love to his own, his only begotten Son, and as a reward of his merit and fufferings, fhould admit the fpiritual feed of this glorious and divine perfon, to be with him where he is to behold his glory ? Do you believe, that the blood of bulls and goats, faved from temporal punish- ment, men guilty of crimes, which, by the tenor of the Sinai covenant, would otherwife have fub- jecled them to it ; and yet can you deem it ab- furd, that the blood of the equal and fellow of the Almighty, fhould fcreen from future venge- ance, thefe who humbly rely upon it ? It was obferved Section i. § 6. that the cere- monial law was intended for a middle-wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles. But when the earth fhould become the Lord's and the ful- nefs thereof, there could remain no occafion for fuch a feparation, and therefore Paul juftly argues uoon this principle, that the diftinclion of meats is now abolifhed, 1 Cor. x. 25, 26. Experience fhews, that the Jews do not now enjoy the bieffings of the Sinai covenant. What account can they give of this ? To charge God with breach of promife would be blafphemy. Do then the Jews fail of performing the condition (q) Deut. ix. 4, 1 — 6. x. 15. annexed Theological Differ tations. 65 annexed to that covenant? Neither can this be faid with truth. They are free from idolatry and other grofs fins, whereby their forefathers often forfeited the divine favour. If they offer no fa- crihces, in this they are not blame* worthy, fee- ing they have no accefs to that place, in which alone facrifices can be lawfully offered. They have not eaten upon the mountains, nor lift up their eyes to idols : and many of them, whatever ilander may alledge, are not only fober and chafre, but juft and honeft in their dealings be- tween man and man. But do thofe of them, who walk the moft blamele-fsly in thefe precepts, Jive by them ? Do they enjoy the reward, enfu- red by the Sinai covenant to fuch outward obedi- ence? Nothing lefs. They are fugitives and vaga- bonds in the earth, and from one end of it even to the other, they are fcattered among all nati- ons. Mint we not conclude from this, that the covenant entailing a profperous pofTeilion of the land of Canaan, upon fuch an external obedi- ence, as many of them actually perform, remains now no more in force ? One thing merits particular attention. While Jerufalem and the temple yet flood, the Jews were forewarned by the perfon whom they ftile an impoftor, that ere the end of that generation, the mofl dreadful evils mould come upon them, as a punifhment for their rejecting the true Mef- fias. What Jefus foretold, the event verified, and ffill continues to verify. Why their fuffer- ings fhould commence from that sera, and corre- fpond, with fuch minute exaclnefs, to the threat- nings of Jefus, is an event, which the condition of the Sinai covenant, if we fuppofe it frill nib- Ming, will never account for. That covenant can €6 Theological Differ tations. can fufficiently account for all the former profpe- rity and fufferings of the Jews. But here, at once, the light it hitherto afforded, fails us, and we are left in the dark, as to the moft confider- able event, which ever befel God's antient people. God was always wont to confirm the word of his fervants, and to perform the council of his mef- fengers (r). But, if Chriftianity is a cunningly devifed fable, muft we not conclude, that, for a feries of 1700 years, God, by a chain of the moft aftonifhing providences, has confirmed the words of an impoftor, and performed the council of a falfe pretender to the character of Meffias ? The fource of the prefent calamities of the Jews, which cannot be learned from Mofes's jaw, is difcovered in his prediction, Deut. xviiu 18, 19. of a prophet who, like him, fhould in- troduce a new difpenfation. A voice from hea- ven, commanding to hear Jefus, declared who was meant in that prophecy. God's vengeance on the Jews for not hearkening to Jefus, has fur- ther declared it. And, according to God's pro- mife, we look and long for a period, when it fhall alfo appear, from the profperity of the chil- dren of Ifrael, when they have returned, and fought the Lord their God, and Jefus their King in the latter days. (r) Ifa. xliv. 26. D I S- 6 7 DISSERTATION II. The CharaBer and Privileges of the Chrijlian Churchy with a Review of Dr. Taylor's Key to the Apojiolic Writings. SECTION I. § I. "\1| 7"E k ave f een * n t ^ le ^ r ^ Diflertation, V V tnat under the Old Teframent, men deftitute of inward piety were really in covenant with God, and had a juft claim to cer- tain external covenant bleilings. In the courfe of the argument, feveral Scriptures have been occafionally ill unrated, which reprefent the na- ture of the Chriflian difpenfation, as in thefe re- fpecls diametrically oppofite to that of the Sinai covenant. Many however maintain, that an external covenant fubfifts under the Gofpel, by which profefTors of Chriftianity, though inwardly difaffecled to God and goodnefs (#), are entitled to certain outward bleffings, and church privi- leges. The common diftinclion of the church into vifible and invifible, or at leaft the incauti- ous manner in which ibme have explained it, has contributed not a little to the prevalence of (a) See Taylor's Key, ch. is. § 236. this t>8 theological Bijfer tat ions. this opinion. But let us impartially examine, whether it has any folid foundation in the facred oracles; and for this purpofe enquire whether the proofs of fuch an external covenant under the Old Teftamenf, will equally apply to gofpel times. § 2. Under the Old Teftament difpenfation, God manifefted himfelf as a temporal monarch. And hence numbering the people, multiplying chariots and horfes, and alliances with infidel ftates, were feverely forbid, becaufe the Jews were to depend upon God alone, as in a peculiar extraordinary manner, their protection and de- fence. If God fiands in the fame relation to any fociety of profefled Chriftians, thefe and fuch like prudent methods, of guarding againft the ambi- tion of rival flates, muft be to that fociety un- lawful. A confequence fo abfurd, that, I fup- pofe, few of my readers are enthufiafts enough to digeft it. Idolatry, under the Sinai covenant, was a {rate crime, and, therefore, an iniquity to be punifhed by the judge. The idolater fuffered, becaufe he renounced allegiance to his lawful prince, and transferred it to an ufurper. If Chrifi's kingdom was of this world, it would be reafonable to infiidt like penalties upon thofe, who will not that he fhould reign over them. But Chrift himfelf hath told us, that his king- dom is not of this world, and that it is fecured not by external violence or perfecution, but by the influences of the Spirit of grace (aa). God, (aa) I fliall here tranfcribe a paflage from p. 59, 60. of Dr. Increafe Mather's Life, published by his ion at Bofton 1724. " He became fenfible, that the example •' of the Ifraelitifh'reformerSj inflicting penalties on falfe " woimippers, 'Theological Differ tations. 69 God, as King of the Jews, vifited the iniqui- ties of the fathers upon the children. Juft as thofe guilty of high treafon, forfeit their honours and eftates, for their offspring, as well as for thernfelves. But we are exprefsly allured, Kzek. xviii. 3. that, in gofpel times, this difpenfation of providence mould wholly ceafe. An evi- dence, that God no more acfs in the character of a temporal prince ! The refpe£f. paid to God, under the Old Tef- tament difpenfation, correfponded to his charac- ter as a temporal monarch, and in a great mea- fure confided in external pomp and gaiety, dan- cing, inftrumental mufic, and other expreffions of joy ufual at coronations or triumphs. But the hour is now come, in which the true wor- fhippers, muri. worfnip the Father, in fpirit and in truth, not with external (hew and pageantry, li worfliippers, would not legitimate the like proceedings ' s among the Chriilian Gentiles. For the holy land of *« old was by a deed of gift from Gcd, miraculoufly )' Dr. Heylin'S Theological Lectures, p. 44. E h c 74 theological Dijfertations. he regards. The moft fplendid performances, if without charity, he accounts as nothing, i Cor. xiii. 2. The Lord only knoweth them that are his, 2 Tim. ii. 19. Confequently that which conftitutes one a member of the Chriftian church, is invifible to the human eye. Believing with the heart, as well as confefling with the mouth, is a neceflary condition of the gofpel falvation, Rom. x. 9. Thofe who are only outwardly, and in profeffion religious, are of the fynagogue of fatan, Rev. ii. 9. iii. 9. Spots in our feafts, 2 Pet. xi. 13. Jude 13. Children of the devil, 1 John iii. 10. Tares fowed by the wicked one, Matth. xiii. 38. Falfe brethren brought in or crept in unawares, Gal. ii. 4. Jude iv. Having no lot nor portion in the bleflings of Chrift's pur- chafe, becaufe yet in the gall of bitternefs, and bond of iniquity, Acts viii. 21, 23. Hence Paul pronounces a general fentence of excommunica- tion againfl falfe-hearted profeflbrs, 1 Cor. xvi.22. * c If any man love not the Lord Jefus, let him be tiuz£iT&) is borrowed from goldfmiths trying gold, whether it be genuine or counterfeit : and is ufed to fignify trying the quality or goodneis of anything, in order to determinewhetherit is of the right fort. Here it means, examining, whether we are real Chriftians, or falfe- hearted hypo- crites. The reaibn of the precept appears from the next verfe. ..Grace alone capacitates to dif- cern the Lord's body with that fpiritual guft and relifh, without which we partake unworthily, and eat anddrink judgment to ourfelves. I acknowledge, however, that minifters may lawfully difpenfe the facraments, to hypocrites who have a credible profemon. And fo may a ludge lawfully affign you a fum of money, when by credible witneffes you prove your right to it, though, after all, you may have bribed thefe witneffes to perjure themfelves. But thcugh minifters may lawfully difpenfe the facraments to hypocrites, hypocrites cannot lawfully demand them. The exercifes of foul to be performed in receiving them, are exercifes of which true be- lievers alone are capable. They only can wzih their garments, and make them white in the blood of the Lamb. They only can fpiritualiy receive and feed upon Chrift's body and blood, (-<•) Luke xxii. 19, 20.. compared with M;t. x::vi. 3$, (/) 1 Cor. xi. ?.S- E 5 The '$z Theological DiJfertationSo The external rites others may perform, but net in the manner which makes them feals of the co- venant, and that is the only manner in which "God allows them to be performed. And thus I nave fully fhewn, that the feals of the covenant are under the New Teftament peculiar to the in- wardly pious, and that therefore none elfe are now in covenant with God. ' 1 SECTION II. . T ET us next enquire, what are the blef- -^ lings, of the alledged external cove- nant, between God and profeflbrs of Chriftianity^ though in heart infmcere ? The chief blefling promifed to Ifrael, in the Sinai covenant, was temporal profperity. But no fuch promife is made, either to the vifible or invifible Chriftian church. Every individual dif- ciple of Jefus, muft lay his account with crofTes and afflictions .(&). How then can a fociety, confifting of profeiTed difciples, look for exemp- tion from them ? The appearance of holinefs muft meet with little favour, in a world, where real holinefs is hated or defpifed. In every age, Tome who profefs Chriftianity in its genuine pu- rity, are involved by that very profeilion, in pe- culiar hardships and diftrelTes. If God had pro- mifed to beflow upon them temporal profperity, this could by no means be reconciled with his truth and faithfulnefs. (u) Matth. xvi. 24. John xvi. 33. A&s xiv. 2*. s Tim. xii. Heb. xji. 6, ji The Theological Dijfertations. 83 The treafure of the Chriftian is yi heaven ( not having on the wedding-garment, reprefents the folly of thofe who not only pafs for good men in the eyes of the world, but fancy them- felves entitled to the bleffings of grace and glory* though they are not cloathed with the fpotlefs robe of the Redeemer's righteoufnefs. § 2. Our Lord fays, John xv. 2. " Every cc branch in me that beareth not fruit, he taketh away," which feems to intimate that men may be branches in Chrift or members of the church, and yet fpiritually unfruitful, — I anfwer, hypo*- crites may be termed branches in Chrift, be* caufe they were efteemed fuch by themfelves and others : as apoftates are faid to be blotted out of the book of life 3 Pfal. Ixix. 29. Rev. xxii. ig. •becaufe> though not really elected, they had once been accounted fo. Or thefe words may be a threatning, that Jefus would root out the Jewifli nation, as barren and unfruitful branches, from the vineyard of his church, i. e. deprive them of their covenant-relation toGod, and of the bleffings connected with that relation. See Rom. xi. 22. This is Cyril's interpretation, lib. 10. c. 24. Or, perhaps, the words - ch -rch . "rln, and others as without, and thus give countenar.ee to the diliinc~tion of a viiibie and an inviilble church, but fpeaks of all the members of the church as within, and of the world as without. AH then who belong to the church, are within, or members of the church invifible. Seme are fo, truly, and in the eyes of God ; others, only apparently, and in the eyes of men. The firit have a title to be within. The-fecond have no title. If we reckon them within, it is only, becaufe their profeilion being credible, we charitably believe it fmcere, and that confequently they are united to Chriff. And hence, fo foon as we find, from their courfe cf life, that their profefilon was deceitful, it be- comes our duty, to renounce communion with them. § 4. 2 Tim. ii. 20. is alfo urged to prove, that God intended there fhould be bad men in the church, as in a great hcufe, there are wooden veiTels, and veiTels of difhonour. But as (Driven well obferves, contra Celfum, lib. 4. p. 210. the great houfe, in this paflagCj means the world, and not the church. The world is termed a houfe, Matth. v. 15. For the apoftles who are to give light to thofe in the houfe, are termed, ver. 14. the light of the world. And from ver. 16. it appears, that thofe in the houfe, means perfons to be converted to -Chritlianity, by the fhining of the apoftles light, and who confequently were not yet converted. And though the church is termed a houfe in other Scriptures, yet, when Paul wrote to Timothy, a great houfe would have 94 Theological Differtatiom, have been no fit epithet for Chrift's little flock. And indeed in this pafTage, the church and the world feem plainly diftinguifhed. The world is reprefented as a great houfe, in which are veflHs of difhonour, bad men as well as good : the church as a pillar in that houfe, peculiarly be- longing to God, and having holinefs engraven upon it. Let me add, it would be ftrange, if Chriftians were required, ver. 21. to purge and feparate themfelves from heretics and profane per- sons, and yet, in the immediately preceding verfe, thefe veflels of difhonour were reprefented as a neceflary part of the church's furniture. In the world, that great houfe, veflels of difhonour muft be admitted. But it is the duty of the church to rid herfelf of them, for to her, no vef* fels, fave veflels of honour and mercy, belong. Compare Rom. ix. 21. § 5. They are miftaken, who think, that the outer-court, Rev. xi. 1, 2. reprefents the vifible church. For the church confidered as inwardly the habitation of God, and outwardly employed in his worfhip, is reprefented by the temple and inner-court, where was the altar, and where the Ifraelites worfhipped. But the outer-court re- prefents a corrupt fociety, aflliming the name of the church, whofe pretenfions God will demons ftrate to be falfe, and which he will give up to be trodden down by her enemies. This may be the reafon, why the angel commiflioned to mea- fure the temple, was prohibited to meafure the ©uteF-court, becaufe that outer-court W3S pro-* perly no part of the temple. SEC, Theological Differ tations. 95 SECTION V. § I. 'HpHUS, it has been fufficiently proved, *■ that a church is a fociety of faints, fincerely profeffing the fame faith, partaking of the fame facraments, interefted in the fame fpiri* tual privileges, and entitled to the fame heavenly blefiings : and that therefore hypocrites belong not to that fociety. This is the Bible idea of the word church, and therefore it ought to be received, however it differ from famionable opi- nions. Yet it may not be amifs to fhew, that this was alio the fentiment of the primitive Chri- ftians. The Catholics and Donatifts entertained the fame notions about the nature of the church. They only differed about her marks, and where fhe was to be found. The Donatifts afferted, that if a church retained in her bofom the openly profane, it was thereby defiled, nay, ceafed to be a true church, fo that its acl: became null and void, and baptifm, conferred in it, was to be re- newed. The minifrry of a hypocrite they ac- knowledged, that of an openly profane perfon they denied to be valid. They confefTed, that men fecretly wicked, though intermingled with the church, did not pollute her, becaufe fhe was ignorant of their wickednefs (a). The Catho- lics went further, and held, that the church was (a) Optat. Milevitonus, l..a. p. 44. ed. Parif, Coll. Carthag. 1. p. 39, and 3. p. 87, 89. Auguftirms in $>re- viculo Coll. 3. c. 8. Jibro poll Coil. c. 9, 10. & contra Epijft. Parmeniani, L 2. c. 10. § 21. not 9 5 Theological Differ tations, not defiled even by harbouring thofe within her, whofe wickednefs fhe knew (b). Auguftine of- ten appeals to Cyprian as of this opinion. His own opinion was, that hypocrites may be tole- rated in the church, becaufe it is impoffible for men, by fearching the heart, to fpy out their hy- pocrify, but that thofe fhould be expelled out of it, whofe naughtinefs is publicly known (c). § 2. In the mean time, none of the fathers maintained, that hypocrites were true members of the church. To begin with Auguftine. How warmly foever he oppofed the Donatifts, yet he acknowledges de doftrina Chrifliana^ 1. 2. c. 22. and in many other places, that the church pro- perly means a collection of regenerate perfons, who truly believe in Chrift, and who all together make up the one myftical body of Chrift their head. He fays in exprefs terms, de doft. Chrift^ 1, 3. c. 32. " Non enim revera Domini cor- ) Cojnm. ad Matth. p. 234. (i) lb. p. 476. (j) lb. p. 260, 44z, and 481. & Homil. 15, ad Jerem. p. 147. ed. Hu- etii. (k) Strom. 1. 7. c. 5, p, 846. ed. Potteri. one Theological Differ 'iations. 99 one true church, in which the righteous are en- rolled according to the decree, and which- gathers within her bofom, thofe whom God had pre- deftinated, having forefeen they would be righte- ous (I). Hermes's Paftor aflerts, that men whofe faith is feigned, and who have not forfaken all wick- ednefs, though they may lurk in the church, do not belong to her (m). Nothing can be fuller or ftronger on this head than the words of Irenaus Adverfus Herefes^ 1. 3. c. 24. edit. Majfuet. " Ubi enim ecclefia, ibi & ** fpiritus Dei j & ubi fpiritus Dei, illic eccle- " fia." And 1, 1. c. 10. he fays, that the true members of the church have one heart and foul, as well as one mouth. Athenogoras's teftimony is equally exprefs. Apol. c. 2. ed. Ox, *£~h yao x? l ^ ictvo ^ vwnpof} z* l*n uTOKfitv-.TGii 70V kcyov, Juftin Martyr pronounces it evident, that thofe are not Chriftians, though in words they may profefs the doctrine of Chrift, who do not live as he has taught (r.). Ignatius exprefsly diiTmguifhes between being called Chriftians, and being truly fo (0) ; fpeaks of fome who were only Chriftians in appear- ance (p) ; and exprefies his defire, that he might not only be called aChriftian, but found fuch (q). So univerfally known was the diftin&ion, be- tween thofe who were, and thofe who only cal- led themfelves Chriftiairs, that it did not efcape (1) Ibid. p. 899, (m) L. t. vi£ 3. 1. 3. km. ^. § 13, and 18. («) Apul. 2. c. 22. ed. Grabe. (0) Ep. ad Maynes. c. 4. (p) Ep. ad Trail, c. 10. (q) Ep. ad Rom. c. 3. " F 2 the ioo Theological Differ tations. the notice of heathen writers in thofe early ages. ■Pliny Eptfi. 1. 10. ep. 97. " Propofitus eft libel- * c lus fine au&ore, multorum nomina continens, tc qui negarent fe efle Chriftianos, aut faille, H or sAeo',. as in other pafTages of that tranflation,. fixeaB&m may mean kindnefs or mercy ^ But it is fufHcient* that HpTS has no fuch fenfe in the Hebrew, except perhaps where it is intimated, that ex- treme necefHty gives ajuft claim to alms. On which account, Solomon fays,- Prov. lit. 27. Withold not good V^pllJ from the Lords there- of, i. e. from thefe, whom God conftitutes by their neceffity the Lords of the withheld good". The miftake of the LXX. might flow from, this, G 5 that 130 Theological Differ tations. that HpT£ fignifies the ground of our acceptance with God, which thofe interpreters, tinctured with that fcheme, which afterwards diftinguifh- ed the feet of the Pharifees, imagined was alms, and other acts of mercy. Juft as the Talmu- dical writers, from the fame notion of the me- rit of good works, term alms Hp*?^. See Light- foot horse Hebraicae ad Matth. vi. 1. and Luke xi. 41. His attempt to prove, that ^utai^Ai may fignify to be laved or delivered, is ftill more fee- ble : for, in the paiTages cited by him, that word either fignifies, being acquitted from the guilt of fin, and entitled to the divine favour, or having our character vindicated and juftified before men. The firft of thefe is the fenfe of the word, in Ifa. xlv. 25. Acts xiii. 39. and Rom. vi. 7. The fecond in John ii. 25. Dr. Taylor explains that pafiage thus: " Was not Rahab the harlot juftL- " fled, (i. e. delivered, or faved from the de- " ftruction in which Jericho was involved) by *.* works, when fhe had received the mefTengers, " and fent them out another way." I ftay not to remark, the Doctor's inconfiftency with him- {df 9 as he elfewhere afterts, that James, in this chapter, treats of the fecond juftification, or final acquittance at the day of judgment. It is enough to my prefent purpofe, that both interpretations are inconfiftent with truth. The evident mean- ing of the apoftle is, " Was not the fincerity of " all things for the Elect's fake, that they may 44 alfo obtain the Salvation, which is Chrift Jefus, " with eternal glory." This fhews, it is one thing to be elect ; and another thing to obtain that falvation which is connected with eternal glory, Key, chap. xi. § 195. Undoubtedly it does. But does it alio mew, that thcfe privi- leges, though different, are not necefTarily con- nected ? To prove this, would have been more for the Doctor's purpofe ; but, I apprehend, not fo eafy. This paffage no more proves, that the elect may fail of eternal glory, than Chrift's en- during fuffering, that God might be glorified in man's falvation, proves, that the whole of man- kind may eternally perifh, and God reap no glory from that aftoniming tranfaction. § 2. Dr. Taylor's fcheme obliges him to con- fider grace to perfevere in religion, as a privi- lege not necefTarily connected with election, adoption, vocation, and other bleffings, which he calls antecedent : but as confequent bleffings, depending on the precarious condition of our im- provement of the antecedent bleilings, common to all Chriftians. Accordingly, he places, in his collection of texts relating to a - nte c edent blef- 4-*-^ fmgs, thefe following : 1 Cor. i. 8. 44 Who 44 fhall alfo confirm you to the end, that ye may " be blamelefs in the day of our Lord Jefus 44 Chrift." 1 ThefT. v. 23, 24. « And the very 44 God of peace fanctify you wholly : and I pray 44 God your whole fpirit and foul, and body, be 44 preferved blamelefs unto the coming of our 44 Lord Jefus Chrift. Faithful is he that calleth 44 you, who alfo will do it." 2 ThefT. iii. 3. 44 But the Lord is faithful, who fhall ftablifh you 44 and 1 38 Theological Differ tations. " and keep you from evil." Phil. i. 6. " Being * c confident of this very thing, that he which " hath begun a good work in you, will perform " it until the day of Jefus Chrift." 1 Pet. i. 5. €C Who are kept by the power of God, through c< faith unto falvation, ready to be revealed in ** the laft time." — And yet thefe promifes plainly relate to church- members without exception, at lead as much as the epithets elect, fan&ified, &c. do. The Doctor, however, judged wifely ire overlooking this circumftance, which, if he at- tended to, he could not but be confcious, would do no fervice to his fcheme of fan&ified Chrifti- ans eternally perifhing. For if his collection of texts, on antecedent bleflings, proves, that all to whom the apoftles directed their epifHes, was confidered by them as elected, fan&ified, called, &c. which I readily allow ; thefe texts equally prove, that perfevering grace was a part of the common portion of Chriftians. D I S- 12 5 DISSERTATION III. The Nature ^Christian Faith, SECTION I. § i. "Tp A I T H or Belief, in flridl propriety of Jjj fpeech, is that credit we give to the teftimony of one, in whofe knowledge of what he terrifies, and in whofe integrity we confide. Though often it is ufed in a fenfe lefs proper, and denotes in general perfuafion or aflent, whe- ther founded upon teftimony or intrinfic evidence, The Holy Ghoft in the facred oracles means to be understood, and therefore fpeaks to men in their own language, and ufes words in their com- mon acceptation. Faith therefore in the Scrip- ture does not fignify, choice, affection, temper,, or behaviour ; for, in common language, it does not fignify thefe : but meerly perfuafion or afTent, and commonly a perfuafion founded on tefti- mony. The meaning of the word believe^ in the fol- lowing Scriptures, is plain to the moft curfory reader : Exod. iv. I. But behold they will not believe me. lb. ver. 5. That they may believe that the Lord God of their fathers hath ap- peared unto thee. 1 Sam. xxvii. 12. And Achifh. believed David, faying, he hath mace his people Ifrael 140 theological Differ tations. Ifrael utterly to abhor him. Prov. xxvi. 25. When he fpeaketh fair, believe him not. Habuk. i. 5. I will work a work in your days, which ye will not believe, though it be told you. John iv. 21. Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye (hall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerufalem, worfhip the Father. James ii. 19. Thou believeft that there is one God ; the devils alfo believe, and tremble. I may venture to fay, if Chriftians had confulted fyftems lefs, and Scrip- ture and their own experience more, they would not have affixed to believing in other paffages, a fenfe entirely different from what it bears in thefe. Faith purifies the heart, Ads xv. 9. worketh by love, Gal. v. 6. and difcovers itfelf fincere by the performance of good works, Ja. ii. 18. Faith therefore is not holinefs, love, or new obe- dience, unlefs the effect is the fame with the caufe, or the evidence with the thing proved. He who confounds faith with any of thefe, might as well plead, that there is no difference between the fun in the firmament, and the fruits of the earth, brought forth and ripened by his genial rays : or between natural life, and the actions of a living man. And yet many writers, on the nature of faith, feem to have forgot that it is one queftion, what is faith ; and another, what is in- feparably connected with it, and what are the fruits that fpring from it ? That faving faith is properly an affent, is fur- ther evident, becaufe it is often termed know- ledge : Ifa. liii. 11. By his knowledge mall my righteous fervant juftify many. John xvii. 3. This is life eternal, to know thee the only true God, and Jefus Chrift whom thou haft fent. 1 Tim. ii. 4. Who will have all men to be faved, and to conic Theological Differ tations. 141 come to the knowledge of the truth. 2 Pet. i. 2, 3. Grace and peace be multiplied unto you, through the knowledge of God, and of Jefus our Lord ; according as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain to life and godlinefs, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to virtue and glory. In thefe paf- fages knowledge muft mean faith, becaufe the diftinguiming properties, attendants, and confe- quences of faith, are afcribed to it, in them. In other Scriptures, knowledge means a clear un- doubted perfuafion. Thus, 2 Cor. v. 11. Know- ing therefore the terror of the Lord, we perfuade men. 1 ThefT. v. 2. For yourfelves know per- fectly, that the day of the Lord fo cometh, as a thief in the night. 2 Tim. i. 12. I know whom I have believed, and I am perfuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him againft that day. 1 John ii. 21. I have not written unto you, becaufe ye know not the truth : but becaufe ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. Why then mould not knowledge mean perfuafion, in the Scriptures, where it is put for faith ? § 2. Other ideas of faith, fubftituted in the place of perfuafion, are better calculated to flat- ter the pride of man, that his acceptance with God is founded on fomething worthy and excel- lent in the frame of his mind, in the choice of his will, and in the byafs of his affections. For that very reafon, thefe ideas muft be falfe. The office affigned to faith in the plan of falvation, is affigned it for this purpofe, that all pretences to merit may be borne down, and the fovereignty and freedom of God's grace in bellowing falva- tion may appear. Rom. iv. 16. '* Therefore it " is 142 theological Differ tations. ** is of faith, that it might be by grace." Faith has no moral efficacy towards procuring our par- don and acceptance. To this reafoning an able writer has objected, that a felf-righteous heart may make a righteouf- nefs of a paflive, as well as of an active faith, and be as proud of his paffivity, as the Pharifee was of his fafting twice in the week. — But, is there not a mighty difference, between fafting, in which you abftain from what is defirable, or fuf- fer what is painful, from a free choice which you imagine virtuous; and the affenting to a truth, when that aflent is conflrained by evidence. If one is proud of the laft, may he not with equal reafon be proud, that he believes the fun is in the firmament, when his eyes are ftruck with the meridian fplendor of that glorious luminary ? § 3. Aftent or perfuafion is the only notion of faith, which, without {training, will apply to every Scripture, where any kind of faith is men- tioned. Let the unbyafled reader confult his Bible, and judge for himfelf. To leave no room for difpute, an infpired author has given us adefcription of the faith by which the juft live. Heb. xi. 1. " Now faith is the fubftance " of things hoped for, the evidence of things not " not away the face of thine anointed." lbs ver. 17, 18. 7* where both thefe titles are in the fame fentence afcribed to Jefus, muft needs appeaf vain and ufelefs repetitions, unworthy of the wifdom of the Holy Ghoft. Befides, we are told, A&s ix. 20. that Paul " preached Chrift " in the fynagogues, that he is the Son of God." Surely this cannot mean, he preached that Chriifc was Chrift. So great a m after of reafoning, not to fay an infpired Apoftle, was incapable of fo- lemnly afferting and proving a meerly identical proportion. Indeed if Chrift. had been ufed as a proper name in the apoftolical times, as it is in modern writings, my reafoning would not be conclufive. But in fad, Jefus, the name given our Lord at his circumcifion, was the only name by which unbelievers then fpoke of him, What H 6 Paul 156 theological Differ tations. Paul preached to the Jews, was therefore this, that the promifed Meffiah is no lefs a perfon than the Son of God. The prophets, had af- cribed both titles to the Redeemer. And the high prieft was probably fenfible of this, when he adjured Jefus by the living God, to tell whe- ther he was the Chrift the Son of God. Matth. xxvi. 63. Yet it was more obfeure, that the pro- mifed Redeemer was the Son of God, in that full emphafis of the title, which includes his di- vine nature, than that God was to anoint him in a peculiar manner with the Holy Ghoft. The charge of blafphcmy againft Jefus, was not founded on his claiming the character of Mef- fias, but on his Ailing himfelf the Son of God. See John v, 18 ; x. 33. Had it not been for this laft claim, it is probable, that the Jews with lefs difficulty would have admitted the firft. They eafily perceived, that if the Mefiias was indeed God, he was infinitely fuperior to Mofes, and therefore had power to abolim Mofes's law, and to erect a fpiritual and heavenly kingdom in its room. That confequence they detefted, and thus were led to reject the principle from which it flowed. With good reafon therefore, did Jefus and his apoftles infift upon it, as a term of difciplefhip, that Jefus fhould be ac- knowledged not only as the Chrift, but as the Son of God. Thefe very Jews, who believed that Jefus was the prophet that mould come in- to the world, and were defigned to take him by force, and make him a king, yet could not bear the afl'ertion that he came from heaven. And it was in diflinction from thofe who (tumbled at that doctrine, that Peter profefTed in the name of the twelve apoftles, " We believe and are " fure, Geological Differ tations. 157 " Aire, that thou art that Chrift, the Son of the " living God. See John vi. 14, 15, 41, 42, 66—69. We read, Matth. xiv. 33. " Then they that " were in the /hip, came and wormipped him r (i. e. Jefus) faying, of a truth, thou art the * Son of God." And John ix. 35—38. " Je- fus heard that they had caft him (wz, the blind c< man) out, and when he had found him, he «' faid unto him, doft thou believe on the Son of " God ? He anfwered and faid, who is he, Lord r " that I might believe on him ? And Jefus faid in the Lord have- " I right eou-fnefs and ftrength. " Zech. xii. 1, " 10. ". Thus faith the Lord which ftretcheth tc forth the heavens, ap.d layeth the foundation t6 of the earth, and formeth the fpirit of man cc within him, I will pour upon the houfe of * c David and upon the inhabitants of Jerufalem, 4< the fpirit of grace and of fupplication, and 4t they fhall look upon me whom they have pier- « ccdJ* 160 Theological Bijfertations. which imports not only the removal of evil, but the reftoring of happinefs, fo that it fhall not be loft any more. See Deut. xxxiii. 29. Ifa. xlv. 17. The name Jofhuah was given by divine direction, not to the deliverer of Ifrael out of Egypt, but to him who put them in pofTef- iion of the land of Canaan. Saving, Luke xviii.. 42. means recovering fight. And, AcT:s iv. 9. (na&wi is rendered in ourEnglifh verfion made whole. It is natural therefore to underftand falvation in the largeft fenfe, in paflages which prophecy of the Meffias as a Saviour, e. g. Gen. xlix. 18. Ifa. xii. 2. lii. 9, 10. Jer. xxiii. 5, 6. And, in facT:, the falvation purchafed and applied by Chriil includes, (1.) Deliverance from the guilt and punimment of fin, and reftoration to the favour of God. See 1 TheiT. i. 10. Ephef. i. 7. The Greeks termed a fentence of absolution aco£xact, and fav- ing is oppofed to condemning, John iii. ij. Mark xvi. 16. (2.) Deliverance even in this life from the power and dominion of fin, and a be- gun conformity to God's image, Matth. i. 21. Tit. ii. 14. (3.) A deliverance at laft from all the remains of fin and forrow, and the porTeflion of fulnefs of joy and pleafures for evermore, 1 John v. 10, 11. Hence faith is defcribed, Heb. xi. as a lively realizing perfuafton of the glories of an unfeen world , leading men from deiire of that theological Differ tations* 1 63 that better country and refpecl to the recompence of reward, to renounce the pleafures of fin, and to fufFer affliction with the people of God. And they who have the fpirit of faith are reprefented,. 2 Cor. iv. 13, 18. as looking at the things which are unfeen and eternal. It muft not be forgot, that the gofpel-teftimony exhibits Chrift as fent by the Father, and faith refpecls him as the Father's ordinance for man's falvation. See John v. 24. vi. 29. xii. 44. xvi. 27. xvii. 8. Rom. iii. 23 — 25. His refurre&ion from the dead, was not only an atteftation of his divine mimon, but a declaration that he had done and fuffered all that was necefTary for man's falvation. And, there- fore, faving faith is defcribed, Rom. x. 9. as a believing in the heart, that God raifed the Lord Jefus from the dead. And Peter addreftes the Chriftians to whom he wrote, 1 ep. i. 21. as by Chrift believing in God that raifed him up from the dead and gave him glory, that their faith and hope might be in God. § 9. Saving faith is reprefented as a believing on Chrift's name, John i. 12. iii. 18. Acts x. 43. 1 John v. 13. What is termed, Matth. xii. 21. trufting in Chrift's name is termed, Ifa. xlii. 4. waiting for his law. By both expreftions we are to underftand, the law that was to go forth out of Zion, Ifa. ii. 3. even the law of faith* Pvom. iii. 27. or, in plainer words, the doctrine of the gofpel, by which Chrift manifefts himfelf to men. This is Chrift's name, which Paul was to bear before the Gentiles, and for the fake of which he was to fufFer great things, Acts ix. 15, 16. And we are told, Acts viii. 12. that the Sa- maritans believed Philip, preaching the things concerning the name of Jefus Chrift. The name o£ 164 Theological Differ tat ions. of Chrift chiefly denotes, (1.) The doctrine of juftification through his name or merits, 1 John ii. 12. " I write unto you, little children, be- " caufe your fins are forgiven you for his name's " fake." Jer. xxiii. 6. " This is the name, " whereby he fhall be called, Jehovah our righ- ** teoufnefs." i. e. He fhall be acknowledged as the felf-exiftent God, and as having wrought out that righteoufnefs, through which alone any of mankind are juftified. The confefling thefe truths is made a neceffary mark of the true church. Jer. xxxiii. 16. " This is the name wherewith tc fhe fhall be called, Jehovah our righteouf- *' nefs." From a conviction of this we are to pray in Chrift's name, John xiv. 13. xv. 16. xvi. 23. i. e. to plead upon his obedience and fuffer- ings for every needful blefling. Agreeably to the prophecy, Joel ii. 32. " Whofoever fhall call " on the name of the Lord fhall be delivered ;'*' where calling on the name of the Lord means the fame thing as making mention of his righte- oufnefs, even of his only, Pfal. Ixxi. 16. (2.) The name of Chrift may intend alfo, the doc- trine of the glory to which he is advanced as Mediator, in order to apply the purchafed re- demption. God the Father has given him a name above every name, Phil. ii. 10. In con- fequence of his obedience and fufferings, as a minifter of the true fancluary, he intercedes for us, as a Prophet teaches, and as a King rules us. Through this name we are faved, Acts iv. 12. ). e. by the power with which the Mediator is vefted, the diforders are rectified, and the dif- eafes cured, which fin had introduced into our natures. Through this name believers fhall have life, John xx. 31. and in this name men fhall be Theological Differ tations. 1 65 fee blefTed, Pfal. 3xxii. 17. i. e. by the power of the Redeemer, grace fhall be conferred upon them here, and glory hereafter : power being given him over all flefh, that he might give eter- nal life to as many as were given him of the Fa- ther. § 10. Many Scriptures, which afTert the ne- ceffity of faith, would, if duly confidered, ac- quaint us what is its nature and object. It is faid, John iii. 16. " God fo loved the * c world, that he gave his only begotten Son, " that whofoever believeth in him, fhould not " perifh, but have everlafting life." If we at- tentively view this verfe, and the reft of our Lord's difcourfe with Nicodemus, it will appear, that we muft believe on Chrift, confidered as God's only begotten Son, who, as fuch, was in heaven, even when he had come down from it ; and yet as alfo the Son of man : as lifted up on a crofs for the cure of our fpiritual maladies.: and as the gift of the Father's love to a wretched perifhing world, the Father having conftituted him Redeemer in the council of peace, 2 Tim^ i. 9. Ac"ts ii. 23. fent him into the world in the fulnefs of time, to aflume man's nature, and obey and fuffer for man, Ifa. ix. 6. Jo. vi. 32. and having actually delivered him up to death as an atonement for our fins, Rom. viii. 32. It is faid, John iii. 36. " He that believeth on " the Son hath everlafting life." The remainder of John's fermon fhews, that we muft believe on Jefus as the Bridegroom of the church ; as one that comes from heaven and is above all ; as one whom God hath fent, who fpeaketh the words of God, and to whom God giveth not the Spirit by meafure ; and as the Son of God, 2 whom 1 66 Theological Dijfertations. whom the Father loves, and into whofe hands he hath given all things. John vi. 47. " He that believeth on me, hath «* everlafting life;" i. e. as appears from the context, he that believeth on me as the bread of God, which came down from heaven, and giv- eth life unto the world ; he that believeth me not only willing to fave all that come to me, but fo able that none fuch fhall fail of complete fal- vation. Acts xiii. 38. " By him all that believe are iC juftified." Here, as the connection fhews, believing means a perfuafion, that through the blood and merits of ChrifT, the chief of finners may be pardoned and accepted. Acls xxvi. 18. " Sanctified by faith that is in " me;" i. e. by a perfuafion of the truth chiefly preached by the apoftles, of which we have a comprehensive abftracT:, ver. 23. " That Chrift u fhould fuffer, and that he fhould be the firft " that mould rife from the dead, and mould " mew light unto the people and to the Gen- " tiles." Rom. iii. 21 — 26. faith is evidently repre- sented as a believing, that through Chrift's blood and righteoufnefs God may be juft, in juftifying men who have finned, and come fhort of his glory. And that a perfuafion of Chrift's death, as an atonement for fin, is efiential to faving faith, is ftrongly intimated, John i. 29. Gal. ii. 20. § 11. One thing further I would obferve, that believing in Chrift, neceflarily fuppofes, a be- lieving that mankind by their rebellions againft God, had merited the fevereft effecls of his dif- pleafure ; were unable to faeisfy divine juftice for their offences, or to cure their natural depra- vity : Theological Differ tations. 167 vity ; and were unworthy of the divine pity and help ; fo that their falvation is wholly to be afcribed, to the freQ mercy of God, and to the "blood and obedience of Jefus. God's fending his Son to be the Saviour of the world, demon- ftrates, that the world was in a perifhing condi- tion, and without this amazing interpofition muft have actually periftied. And this again demon- strates the infinite evil of fin, and the eternal and unalterable obligations men are under to love and ferve God. To one infenfible, that the law of God is holy, juft, and good, and that his violations of that law deferve the moft dreadful punifliment, the tidings of a Saviour will appear an infult, not a favour. And the fufferings of that Saviour, in the room of finners, will lead fuch a one, inftead of admiring the tremendous juftice and fpotlefs purity of God, to fufpecl: him of cruelty, whofe tender mercies are over all his other works. Mr. Glafs juftly obferves, Tejli- mony, c. 5. § 3. That without a work of the law upon their confciences, men will flight the glad tidings of falvation. § 12. But I pretend not to collect a lift of the truths, which it is evident from Scripture, faving faith eitherdireclly aftents to, or neceflarily fuppofes. It is for wife reafons, no fuch lift is contained in the facred oracles. It might have proved a fatal temptation to many, to reft content, with fome general belief of thefe firft principles of the oracles of God, inftead of growing in the knowledge of Jefus Chrift. For the fame reafon, the Bible tells us not, though many divines have attempted to tell us, how near we may approach the bor- ders of wickednefs without committing it, or how far we may be overcome by fin and fatan, and 1 68 Theological Differ tat ions. and yet retain a principle of grace. The filence of the Scripture, is a fpur to diligence and ad- vancement in religion, and a warning to pafs the time of our fojourning here in fear. SECTION III. § I. IJUT are there not names given to faith, **-* in various pafTages of Scripture, that import choice, affection, and other operations of the will ? — This has been taken for granted. How far upon fufficient grounds, I am now to enquire. Faith is reprefented as hearing Chrift, or the words or voice of Chrift, Deut. xviii. 15. Pfal. xviii. 45. Prov. i. 33. Ifa. xlix. 1. lv. 3. John v. 24, 25. Without doubt every believer hears the voice of Chrift calling him to the exercife of de- vout affections, and a correfpondent practice. But that voice of the fupreme Wifdom (0> the heavenly Bridegroom (d), the good Shepherd (*), which was to call nations hitherto ignorant of true religion (f) 9 yea, to quicken the dead and call the things that are not, as tho' they were (g) y is no other than the glad tidings that the Father hath fent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. This is the joy and gladnefs which David prays he might be made to hear, Pfal. li. 8. Faith hears, i. e. credits thefe declarations of God's mercy through Chrift in the written word, and in the preached gofpel. Clemens Alexandrinus (0 Prov. i. ao, viii. 1, 4. (d) Cant. ii. 8. (0 John x. 3, 16. (f) Ifa. lv. 5. (g) Rom. if. 17. juftly Theological Differtations. 169 juftly obferves, Strom. 1. 5. c. 1. that faith is the ear of the foul, and that Homer ufes hearing fur perceiving. OdyJJi £. ver. 186. § 2. Receiving Chrifr, where it is put for faith, is nothing elfe than receiving the gofpel-tefti- mony concerning Chrifr. In almoft all languages, the metaphor of receiving, is often applied to hearing, learning, believing. Thus Hefycbius de viris doftrina clarls, p. 13. &t svioi Tra.p.» JWaTo? tthhax; iyjAV* a.Kh? xrces eos r, /;.&><; ?^you.iv. The fpirit takes from the fcripture, the grand evidence of faith which he had lodged there, and carries it to the hearts of the elect, and then the light and power of divine truth fo apprehends and overcomes the foul, that it can no longer refift. § 2* That triumphant evidence , is no other than tht glory and excellency of the gofpel fcheme of revelation, maniftfled by the holy fpirit in iuch a mannerj as produces full convidtion, that I 5 a XjS Theological Differ tatiotis. a fcheme To glorious could have none but God for its author {k). If the gofpel be hid, and (k) That there is an excellency in the gofpel, which when perceived, produces a faving conviction of its divine original, has been largely proved by Prefident Edwards^n his valuable treatife on religious affections : tho' that great man from his fermons on juftifkation, ieems to have pla- ced faving faith in the choice of the will. This is not the only inftance in which writers of fuch diftinguimed abi- lities in proving one thing, lay the foundation for prov- ing another, not only foreign to their thoughts, but op- pofite to their fentiments. ProfefTor Lampe of Utrecht, in his diflertation on the formal act of faith, places it in the confent or acquiefcence of the will in the gofpel fcheme of falvation. And yet in his commentary on the gofpel of John, and other critical writings, has evidently mewn* that the defcriptions of faith which are generally thought to imply choice and affection, are ufed to denote know- ledge or affent. Mr. Glafs, in his teftimony of the King of Martyrs, Edr. 1729. c. 4. Sect. z. p. 192, 193, 197, 198, 199. ins feme very judicious remarks on the foundation of the affent in faving faith. The fubftance of them is. There is an extrinfic evidence for Chriftianity from miracles, &c. which may flop the mouths of gainfayers, make men at- tentive to the gofpel, and render thofe inexcufable that openly reject it. This may be, and is clearly perceived by men, that are no ways influenced by the gofpel in their practice, having never difcerned the glory, or felt the power of divine truth : for many fuch have as clear wits, and as much thirft for philofophical knowledge as other men. But the faith whereby men are faved, is not begotten by, and does not ftand upon this extrinfic evi- dence, but on the light and evidence which fhines in the divine teftimdny itfelf, and which when beheld, in fo far as it is fo, will effectually change men, and conform them to itfelf in heart and life. None can fay, it is impoffible that God mould reveal his mind and will, and give abun- dant evidence that it is he that fpeaks in the revelation it- felf. Nor that it is impoffible, that by means of this revelation, he mould 'form the minds of thofe, whom he xv >u!d have to underftand it, into a fuitablenefs to this his truth, and make them capable to difcern this Evidence, in having a true underftanding of the truth, which he tef- Tirics, imd which carries this evidence in itfelf. i men theological DiJJiftatiotts. 179 men perifh thro' unbelief, it is hid from thofe, whofe minds the God of this world hath blind- ed, leaft the light of the glorious gofpel of Chrift mould mine unto them. 2 Cor. iv. 4. Where the gofpel is difcerned in its native luftre and glory, unbelief cannot remain, and fouls cannot perifh. God begins a laving change on the heart, by mining into it, to give the light of the knowledge of his glory in the face of Jefus Chrift. lb. ver. 6. It is in confequence of Chrift's manifefting the father's name, i. e. his glory, to the men given him out of the world, that they know furely he came out from the Fa- ther, and was fent by him. John xvii. 6 — 8. The grand facts of the gofpel were recorded by Luke, that Theophilus might know the certainty of the things wherein he had been inftructed. Luke i. 4 : and by John, that men might be- lieve that Jefus is the Chrift the Son of the liv- ing God. John xx. 31. Remarkable are Solo- mon's words, Prov. xxii. 19— -21. " That thy 44 truft may be in the Lord, I have made known 44 to thee this day, even unto thee. Have not ** I written unto thee excellent things in council 44 and in knowledge ? that I might make thee' '* know the certainty of the words of truth, 44 that thou mighteft anfwer the words of truth 44 to them that fend unto thee." Here it is plain- ly aliened, that the excellency of council and of knowledge, which appears in the written word, was ftamped upon it for this very end, that from viewing that excellency, men might know the certainty of the words of truth, and be encou- raged to truft in the Lord. And that the glory and excellency of divine truth, mould actually produce this effect, we learn from Pi", cxxxviii.' 16 4, i So Theological Differ tations. 4, 5. " All the kings of the earth fhall praife " thee O Lord, when they hear the words of " thy mouth. Yea, they {hall fing in the ways UT as true faith is difti-n-guifhed from *~* counterfeits by its foundation: fo that •difference appears by its infeparable attendants ^and genuine fruits. The inclinations and behaviour of the men of the world, is confiderably affected by objects diftant and future, and that consequently cannot fee difcerned by the ey the pleafures for which the voluptuous pant, and the riches which the worldly minded covet. If thefe poflibilities have fuch effects on mankind ; does not reafon force us to conclude, that the glorious objects of faith, when viewed in their reality and importance, muft greatly influence their affections and conduct ? Truth is the food of the foul. The truths of divine revelation are the means of producing, nouriming, and increafing the fpiritual life. God works on men in a way fuited to their rational natures, and to the eftablifhed Connexion be- tween the underftanding and will. He begins with Theological Differtations. i%y with enlightening the understanding, that the light and force of truth, may fweetly attract the will to a right choice (If Thus in God's light the believer fees tight, thinks and judges of things in fome meafure as God does, fo that God's mind and will revealed in the Scripture, become alfo his. Where this heavenly Lamp points out the way, he chearfully follows. If he did not refolve, agreeably to the ffrong and lively im- preffions he feels of divine truths, he would do himfelf violence. That light, like the light of the natural fun, while it diicovers objects, at the the fame time by a powerful influence, quickens^ warms, refrefhes, and fupports. " The light is " the life of men," John i. 5. Ch rill's words are fpirit and life, John vi. 63. On this account the knowledge or remembrance of divine things, is frequently put in Scripture for the whole of our duty, e. g. Ecclef. xii. 1. Exod. x. 8. be- caufe divine things, when rightly known and called to mind, in fome meafure affect and influ- ence, as their various natures require. On the other hand, bad men are faid not to know God's -ways, Pfal, xcv. 10. and though the fins of the Ifraelites were many, yet often all of them are comprehended in unbelief, Jude 5. Pfal. Ixxviii. 22. Heb. iv. 2, 3. Not to be affected with qua- lities in an object, that are in their own nature affecting, is not to perceive thefe qualities. It is however the doctrines of divine revela- tion, rather than the precepts, that are the chief means of fanctincation. Love to God, for in- (1) See Owen on Communion with God, LoncL 170a. p. 15—17. fiarfce, 1 88 'theological Dijfertatiom. ftance, is not fo much excited by the precept, ITbou jhalt love the Lord thy GW, as by difcovenes of God's lovelinefs and love (m). The fundamental articles of Chriftianity, re- lating to the atlonifhing plan of man's redemp- tion, are admirably calculated to promote holi- nefs of heart and life, and indeed are the grand Spring of both. Hence,' with the ftricleft pro- priety, the gofpel is termed the truth according to godlinefs, Tit. i. i. and the myftery of god- linefs, 2 Tim. iii. 16. And doing ChrifVs com- mandments, is reprefented as the neceflary evi- dence, that we know him, and that the truth is in us, 1 John ii. 3, 4. So that when men are faid to be fanclified through the truth, John xvii. 19. or to be created in righteoufnefs and holi- nefs of truth, Ephef. iv* 24. the fame thing is meant, as when they are faid to be fandtified through faith in Jems Chrift, A&s xxvi. 18. and to have their hearts purified by faith, Adts xv. 9. 4 « The corruption of mankind, even *.' where the pureft religion is profeftcd, and in " theory afFented to, does not arife from the ** weaknefs of religious principle, but from the 4t want of it («)." § 2. A belief that the Father fent the Son to be the Saviour of the world, implies a belief that the world needed fuch a falvation, and confe- quently a belief of the infinite evil of fin, and the infinite obligations to duty. And this laft fuppofes a knowledge and belief of the infinite glory and perieclion of God, whence that obli- (m) See Principal Leechmarfs fermon at the opening of the General Aflembly. (n) Dr. Biown on the Characleriftics Eflay 2. Seel. io» gation Theological Differ tations. 189 gation primarily arifes. Now fuch a knowledge of God, cannot but influence our difpofitions and actions. Even the faith of devils affects them. M The devils believe and tremble." And had men fuch an apprehenfion of God's revealed cha- racter, as devils have of his feverity, it would draw forth love, reverence, and thankfulnefs, and animate to a chearful difcharge of every duty. If we know one to have an amiable temper, we naturally defire his friendfhip, and carefully avoid whatever may forfeit it. IF we believe another wife, honefr, active, and benevolent, we readily entruft to his care, even thefe affairs, about the fuccefs of which we are moft felicitous. And, without fcruple, we refer a juft caufe to the de- cifion of a fkilful and impartial judge. The ap- plication of thefe remarks is eafy. He only knows God as juft, who fears his vengeance, and is careful not to provoke it : as long-fuffering, who is not hafty in his fpirit to be angry : as merci- ful, who readily forgives the offences of his fel- low-fervants : as the ruler of all perfens and events, who is anxioufly careful for nothing, and holds on in the paths of duty, leaving events to the divine difpofal. " None wander from God, " prefer the flefh and the world before him, and >' in their whole lives walk contrary to him, but M from their ignorance of him (0)." Thefe who do not " execute judgment and feek the truth, " though they fay the Lord liveth, furely they " fwear falfely," Jer. v. 3, 2. What they fwear is in itfelf an undoubted truth, but their profeiled belief of it h falfe and hypocritical. They are/ (0) Swinnock's Incomparablenefs of God, p. 2. as 190 Theological Differ talions* as it follows, ver. 21. " a foolifh people, and " without underftanding, which have eyes and cc fee not, which have ears and hear not." If they underftood and believed the truth they pro- fefs, they could not go on thus frowardly in the ways of their own heart. If they realized the glory of God, the infinite value of his favour, that nothing can be againft men if- he be for them, and nothing for them if he be againft them ; they muft have concluded, that at all times, in all places, and in every poffible cir- cumftance, it is wrong and unfit to deviate from duty. ** Were we thoroughly convinced of the " amiablenefs of the divine character, we could " not furely avoid imitating it, where fuch imi- -* tation is within our power. But the incon- 4< fiftency and abfurdity of our conduct confifts, " rather in acting contrary to our own concef- " fions and declarations, than to any fixed abid- " ing fentiments of our minds. And we have humana. Arabiee cum latina Pocockii ver- *' fione, Ox. 1 701,. 4to." Fabricius refers us, for an account of this curious piece, to the Bi- bliotheque univerfelle, T. 3. p. 76. and the hjftory of the works of the learned for the year 1708. p.; 365. I have not time to confider the genuinenefs of this account ; but I'm fure, if genuine, 'tis a demonftration of the falfhood of the Doctor's hypothecs j and therefore, I think, if he perfifts in bis opinion, he will be forced to convince the world of its falfhood. But, perhaps, fome will ftill alledge, that if none of the Greek or Roman philosophers, who- were men of more than ordinary fagaeity, and, as the Doclor informs us, bent their wits in that particular way in which it was mod likely to make- fuich difcoveries.; if none of thefe ever discover- ed, by bare reafon, the truths of natural reli- gion, the fame may be fafely concluded of all other philofophers. Tho', if this be alledged, I laave already Sufficiently obviated it, both in this. and the end of the former Section ; yet, for the reader's farther Satisfaction, I mail £hew in the- next Section, that the Doctor's representation of the antient philofophers, is not quite confiftent with truth, and that they had greater opportu- nities to make difcoveries ifl natural religion than iie fcems to think* SECT. 'Thtohgicat Dijf&rtations. %z, 1* L 2, c, 3. § 13. & feqj incon- 230 Theological "Differ tatiom. inconfiderable progrefs, if we may credit what antient hiftory records. I need not mention Thales's having calculated eclipfes. We have facls related of thefe philofophers ftill more fur- prifing, and which muft argue a degree of the knowledge of nature, and a penetration of judg- ment, fuperior, in Ibme initances, to that of modern philofophers. Thus Ariftotle, Pol. i. 7. and Cicero de Divinatione, 1. 1. inform us, that Thales, by aftronomy, forefaw, ere winter was pad, that next year there was to be an unufual plenty of olives. Anaximander, Thales's fcho- Jar, tho' he feems to have been much inferior to his matter, yet is recorded to have foretold an earthquake. A piece of (kill, which a paffage in Pliny's natural hiftory, (1. 2. c. J<). p. 231. edit. Harduini, Par. 1685.) too remarkable to be here omitted, {hews many of the philofophers endued with. His words are, " Praeclara quaedam efle " & immortalis in eo, fi credimus, divinitas per- " hibetur Anaximandro Milefio phylico, quem " ferunt Lacedemoniis praedixiiTe, ut urbem ac " te£ra cuftodirent : infiare enim motum terras, " cum & urbs totaeorum corruit,&Taygeti mon- f* tis magna pars ad forrnam puppis eminens ab- " rupta, cladem infuper earn ruina preflit. Per- " hibetur Sc Pherecydi, Pythagorae do<5tori, alia «* conjecfatio, fed & ilia divina : hauftu aquae e " puteo praefenfilTe, ac praedixiiTe ibi terrae mo- " turn. Quae fi vera funt, quantum a Deo tan- u dem videri poflunt tales diftare, dum vivant." What is here faid of Pherecydes, is confirmed by Cicero de Divinatione, 1. 2. The fame is re- lated of Anaxagoras by Ammianus Marcellinus, ). 22. and of Pythagoras by Eufebius, praep. ev. 1. 10. and Jamblichus, vit. Pythag, 1. 1. c, 23. Thefe Theological Dijfeftaiiotis. 231 Thefe paflages are fo clear and exprefs, as to the antients having predicted earthquakes, that he mud have much of the fceptic about him, who can disbelieve the fact. One of the molt judi- cious critics and accurate reafoners this age has produced, viz. Bp. Warburton in his Divine Le- gation of Mofes, p. 318. feemsftill more to have afcertained it. The flory, fays he, of Pythago- ras's predicting earthquakes, has much the air of a fable, and, I believe, has been generally rank- ed, as it is by Stanley, with the abundance of idle trumpery, which the enthufiaftical Pytha- goreans have raked together concerning him. Yet a late relation has fully vindicated the truth of it ; and pofterity, that could not profit by his knowledge, has, at laft, confirmed the ve- racity of his hiftory. Peter Dudley, Efq; in the Philofophical Tranfadlions, No. 437. p. 72. fpeaking of an earthquake which lately happen- ed in New-England, hath thefe remarkable words, " A neighbour of mine, that has a well " 36 feet deep, about three days before the " earthquake, was furprifed to find his water, " that ufed to be very fweet and limpid, flink " to that degree that they could make no u(q " of it, nor fcarce bear the houfe when it was " brought in ; and thinking fome carrion was " got into the well, he fearched the bottom, '* but found it clear and good, tho' the colour *-* of the water was turned whitifh or pale. In " about (even days after the earthquake, his " water began to mend, and, in three days more, " returned to its former fweetnefs and colour." Thus Bp. Warburton, who, in the whole of that excellent performance, has cad: a new light on the philofophy and theology of the antients, and aj2 Theological Differ tations. and applied his admirable difcoveries to the mod noble purpofes. But Pythagoras muft not have die honour of being the firft who forefaw earth- quakes from the taite of water. This we muft afcribe to the Ionic fc£t r two philofophers where- of > we are informed in the above-cited pafTages-, foretold earthquakes, viz. Anaximander and Anaxagoras. If it were neceffary, other proofs of the faga- city of thefe philofophers, and the advancements they had made in the knowledge, of nature, might have been adduced. Certainty any, who have the leaft acquaintance with thefe matters^ muft at flrft fight perceive, that it was hnpofii- ble for them to have made fuch difcoveries, with- out a competent knowledge of the theory of motion. This, then, was one of the principal £ubjecls of their refearches ; and thefe are the enquiries which I am about to fhow conducted them to the knowledge of the foul's immorta- § 3. The Ionic philofophers imagined, that all life, cogitation, motion, or activity of any fort, proceeded from a foul, which they defined a. fubftance endued with a power to move itfelf, and other things. Hence they accounted- thefe things, which we commonly reckon inanimate, as the ioadftone and amber, to be endued with fouls, Vid. Laert. vita Thaletis, p. 16. juxta finem, edit. H. Stephani, 1594. This moving princi- ple was considered as the fource of all aelivity. They obferved, that the bodies around them loft their motion, and of confequence their acti- vity. The caufe of this they faw, was, that what motion they communicated to other bodies, they loft themfeives ; but that fort of matter T which theological Differ tations. 233 which thinks within us, (the proper motion whereof, as Plato obferves in his Timaeus, was to think, .will, confult, love, bate, &c.) tho* it communicated motion to the body, yet they per- ceived ftill retained its own proper motion equal and unvariable, which convinced them, that, in fome refpecl: or other, the matter of the foul muft have been of a different nature from that of the bodies around us, as it did not lofe its mo- tion in the way they loft theirs, Hence they termed the foul incorporeal, not imagining it ftriclly immaterial, but only of a difFerent na- ture from the grofs and common matter whereof the bodies around us are compofed. Since then the foul did not lofe its proper motion by the way of communication, (in which it refembled the deity, whofe intrinfic perfections are not dimi- nifhed by their being communicated to creatures) and they could think of no other way whereby it could be loft, they concluded that it would al- ways retain its proper motion, i. e. be immor- tal. Accordingly we find Thales is mentioned as the firft who held the foul's immortality. Vid. Laert. p. 16. probably, becaufe he was the firft who argued for it on the principles I have now mentioned ; or the firft who faw that this opi- nion was not only fupported by tradition, and the univerlal confent of mankind, but had a founda- tion in nature and the reafon of tilings. But Dr. Campbell, p. 321. will by no means allow it probable, that Thales had any notion ef the foul's immortality. His reafons are, that Thales feems to reckon the foul nothing but 3 certain quality in all matter capable of acling or moving; that he attributes a foul to the load- ftone, becaufe it moves iron, nay, exprefly af- firmed^ 234 Theological Differ talions. firmed, that all things are full of fouls. From this the Doctor infers, that Thales was too deep- ly ignorant of the nature of the foul, to have any notion of its future exigence. But thefe very confiderations led me to make a quite diffe- rent inference, viz. That Thales, being per- fuaded of the natural inactivity of common mat- ter, concluded that all matter which moves, muft be moved by a foul : and imagining it unphilo- fophical to explain the motion of the bodies around us, by the immediate influx of the fu- preme mind, he chofe to fay, that every particu- lar body, which acts or moves, was animated by a foul. Let me now account for what the Doctor mentions in the fame place, that Thales thought the fouls which refide in the upper world immortal, thefe which are here below mortal. The cafe probably was, he obferved, that what- ever influence the fun and other celeftial bodies have, in communicating motion, vigour or ac- tivity to any thing elfe, yet they always retain- ed their own proper motion, not lofing it by communication ; whereas he obferved, that ftones, and other terreftrial bodies, lofe whatever mo- tion they communicate to one another, fo that at lad all their motion, and of confequence their life and activity, muft needs come to an end. But this general observation of Thales, about terreftrial fouls, had probably not a few excep- tions, whereof this muft have been one, that the fouls of men were immortal ; fo that Auguftine was probably miftaken, in imagining that Thales thought all fouls below mortal, while he only afterted, that the bulk of them were fo ; or per- haps the expreflions ufed by Auguftine, De fiv. Dei, 1. 7. c. 6. were more extenfive than the ideas "Theological Differ I ations. 235 ideas that father had in his own mind. It is pro- bable, that Anaxagoras likewife imagined the fouls of beafts and men to be equally immortal ; for he too afcribed a foul to all forts of animated beings. His fuppofing the foul not elder than the body, proves indeed he could not conclude its immortality upon Pythagoras's principles, but he might upon Thales's, whom he feems in many things to have followed. § 4. The Do&or obferves, pag. 94. & feqq. That the reafons of Plato and others, for the im- mortality of the foul, were of fuch a nature, that they could never have ferved as fteps to lead them to the knowledge of that truth. But has our author never heard of conjectures having been framed upon very flight grounds, with refpe£t. to the exiftence and properties of things unknown, which time and further care have at laft verified ? Has not falfhood often been ufed by others, to conduct: us to the knowledge of truth, and dif- pofe us the better for its reception ? And why may not we ourfelves deduce a truth, as a con- sequence from a doctrine, which is either falfe, or if tnte, does not prove it ? If very weak rea- fons will lead a perfon to believe an error he never before heard of, Why may they not be capable to perfuade him of a truth alfo ? Is there fome unaccountable averfion in the human mind to truth, and propenfity to error, that influences it to receive the latter on the moft trifling ac- count, while nothing fhort of demonftration can prevail with it to embrace the former ? As to the argument Plato draws in his Pbcsdo, p. 245. from the foul's felf-motion, and being always in mo- tion, to prove its immortality, let me offer a con- jecture, which feveral circumflances render not improbable. 236 theological Differ tations. improbable. Plato, in the profecution of his ftudies, one day hears an Ionick philofopher rea- foning for the foul's immortality, on the prin- ciples mentioned in the former paragraph. Plato forgets the argument of the Ionick fage, and only retains a confufed idea in his mind, that the me- dium from which it was drawn was motion. This fets him a- working, to hammer out an argument from that topick ; and he falls upon that one cited by the Doctor, p. 96. which, however ab- ftrufe, confufed, and mixed with error, contains in it plain veftiges of the reafoning juft now men- tioned. The fame may be faid of another of Plato's arguments mentioned by the Doclor, p. 104. However, I cannot but obferve, that it does not look over-ingenuous, to cull out a few weak arguments to an author's disadvantage, who, every one knows, has reafoned admirably well, in other parts of his writings, on thefe very fub- jecls. § 5. The Doctor remarks, p. 102. that all thefe philofophers, who held the immortality of the foul, did likewife hold its pre-exiftence, and inferred the former from the latter. How far this is true, I fhall not pretend to judge, tho' I have good ground to think, that thofe of the Ionick fchool, who held the foul's immortality, did it upon quite different principles; and the Doctor has given us no evidence of their believing the foul's pre-exiftence ; but, however this be, the fcheme of the pre-exiftence of fouls was very univerfally believed. Though this might in part be occafioned from the tradition of all things be- ing created in the fpace of fix days, which it feemed hard to reconcile with the fuppo-fing fouls every day creating ; yet I am apt to think, that the Theological Differ tations, 237 the fitnefs of thic fcheme to refolve feveral diffi- culties about the mifery of infants, &c. which, to the ancients Teemed other wife unanfwerable, was the circumftance that contributed mod to fpread it j at leaft it is far from being fo wild a delufion, or extravagant a conceit, as the Doctor is pleafed to reprefent it. § 6. The Doctor, p. 112. & feqq, makes (ome reflections on the opinion Plato and others had of the tranfmigration of fouls. The truth of the cafe feems to be this : Thefe philofophers faw that the foul was immortal, and would be re- warded or punifhed in another life proportionably to its conduct, here; but being destitute of a re- velation to inform them of the nature and dura- tion of the rewards and punifhments of another .life, they fell on different fchemes as their fancies directed them. Molt of their fchemes were mon- ftrous and inconfiftent, as being the offspring, not of a folid judgment, but of a roving imagi- nation. That which Virgil reprefents, notwith- ftanding all its blemifhes and defects, is one of the beft and moft diftinct. Mean time, the doc- trine of the tranfmigration does not prove that reafon could not lead the Heathens to their notion of the foul's immortality, but only that they ad- vanced things relating to that notion which rea~ fon could not fupport ; and we find fome, who maintained the foul's immortality, Teemed, at the Tame time, convinced of the whimficalnefs of thefe opinions, which the generality of its af- ferters embraced. And Xenophon fharply taxes Plato for having deferted Socrates, and embraced Pythagoras's monftrous doctrine of the tranfmi- gration^ Xenoph. epi/h ad /EJhinem^ p. 1000. A proof, 23 8 Theological Differ tat ions. proof, that the genuine difciples of Socrates dif- believed the tranfmigration. § 7. So much for the immortality of the foul. A few remarks will fuffice as to what the Doctor has advanced on the notions of the ancients about the divine exiftence. It has been already obfer- ved, that the imagining the fun and ftars animate bodies, will be but a poor plea for idolatry, as it had no fuch tendency to excite it as the Doctor imagines. But what the Doctor alledges, § 6. " That " none of the ancient philosophers, in their " fearches into the firft caufe and origin of 44 things, were led to difcover the being and at- < c tributes of God ; but that, on the contrary, *' they accounted air, fire, &c. the firft principles " of all things," will deferve fome confideration. Three folutions may be given of this difficulty, which I fhall juft mention, leaving it to the real der to chufe which he likes beft. The Firft is that of Tkomajfin, viz. That the firft Ionick phi- lofophers, fuppofing a firft efficient caufe, as what had never been called in queftion, fpoke only of the fecond caufes, which hitherto had been un- known, and but little fearched into ; imagining, that had they introduced a God in accounting for every particular effect, the fearch of fecond cau- fes would be again laid afide, and men would content themfelves with the knowledge of the firft caufe. But Bayle difapproves of this Solu- tion, and rather inclines to think, that the phi- lofophers, defpifing the poets who were the mod ancient heathen divines, as having maintained a variety of opinions without foundation in reafon, carried their prejudices againft them to fuch a pitch, theological Differ tat tons. 239 pitch, as often to oppofe an opinion, for no other reafon than that the poets defended it. He refers us, for confirmation of this, to Ariftotle's Me- taphifich\ lib, 3. cap. 4. p. 662. The loji folu- tion is, That indeed thefe philofophers fooliihly reckoned God a material being ; nay, that fome of them even proceeded fo far, as to determine that the deity was fuch or fuch a particular kind of matter: But though in this they erred, yet, as they acknowledged in general a firft caufe of all things, fo in particular they afcribed to it moft of the properties we do to the true God, except unity and fpirituality. But even in thefe points Thales might poffibly have been orthodox. Laertius informs us, p. 23. That he ftiled the world, The moft beautiful of all things, becaufe it was the work of God. And is not this plainly enough afcribing its formation to one fupreme caufe ? As to the divine fpirituality, Velleius exprefly afierts, in Cicero's firft book on the nature of the Gods, that he faid, God was the mind who had framed all things out of nature. But Dr. Campbell won't allow the paflage genuine, be- caufe immediately after Velleius afterts, that An- axagoras was the firft who afcribed to a mind the formation of the univerfe ; and it is not to be fuppofed Cicero would make him contradict him- felf in the fpace of two or three lines. I (hall not obferve how dangerous it is to reckon a paf- fage fuppofititious, which muft have been in thefe copies of Cicero that Minucius Fselix and Laclan- tius ufed, but rather refolve the difficulty, by pro- pofing an alteiation of two letters in the paiTage about Anaxagoras. Cicero's words are, hide dn- axagoraS) qui accepit ab Anaximine difctplinam y pri- mus 240 Theological Differ! alivns. mus omnium rerum defcriptionem & modum mentis in* finita, vi ac rati one deftgnari & confici voluit. Chan the primus into primam, and you have at once a foiution of the difficulty, and an obfervation of a difference betwixt Thales and Anaxagoras's fen- timent, viz, That the latter only afcribed the original arrangement of things to God, imagin- ing that every fubfequent effecl: would follow in a natural and mechanical way from fuch arrange- ment. § 8. The Doctor goes on, § 7. to fhew, " That 44 thefe ancient philofophers, who confefied the 41 exiftence of an infinite mind, had fuch notions 44 about the formation of things, that it is plain 44 they were not led to the knowledge of the firft 44 caufe from the effects he had produced. One, 44 (fays the Doctor, p. 334.) cannot well imagine 44 what was the dignus vindice nodus^ the parti - 44 cular efFecl:, wherein Anaxagoras would find it 44 neceflary to drag in the agency of an infinite 44 mind, when he makes men and all animals to 44 rife from hotbeds and dunghills, and the ftarfc 44 to be great ftones, torn from the earth by the 44 violent whirling of the aether. " But is not a mind juft as neceflary to the formation of ani- mals, if that difpofition of things, which will na- turally produce animals, cannot take place with* out the efficiency of a mind, as if the immediate interpofal of a mind were neceflary to the form- ing every particular animal. Now, the former of thefe was evidently Anaxagoras's opinion ; fo that the Doctor may eafily fee what was the dig- nus vindice nodus^ that forced that philofopher to introduce a deity. I fnall conclude thefe fheets with the words of Jo. Alb. Fabricius, in his book on the Truth of Cbriftianity % 1 theological Differ tations. 241 Cbriftianity, cap. 8. Itaque & adhuc fum in ilia fententia, quod infelix, & religioni atque humano ge- neri parum utihs vel honorificus ; addo, & iniquus eft labor, principes ingeniorum, & prafanUffimos to- rtus antlquitatis viros, invitos ac repugnantes trahere in focietatem atheorum, tff univerfum Eihnicifmum confundere cum Spinojifmo atque Atheifmo, cum Jlpo- Jlolui quoque in Ethnicis non tarn defideret cognitionem Dei, quam quod Deum quern ex operibus cognofcebant, non tanquam Deum honor e funt fuper omnia profecutu M DIS- 24 2 DISSERTATION V. On Frequent Communicating. SECTION L THE prejudices of many pious and well-dif- pofed people, againft the late overture of the fynod of Glafgow and Air, concerning fre- quent communicating (a)> make it neceflary to acquaint them with the reafons on which that ©V£rture was founded, that men of honeft minds may {a) The overture of the fynod of Glafgow and Air, Glafgow, 5th Oclober 174.8, was as follows : A propofai from the prefbytery of Glafgow, concern- ing the more frequent celebration of the facrament of the Lord's Supper, being laid before the fynod by their com- mittee of overtures, the fynod appointed a felecl: commit- tee to confider thereof, who reported as follows : The committee humbly propofe the following articles to the consideration of the very reverend fynod j wherein they are unanimous in their judgment. That the general propofai from tlje reverend prefbytery of Glafgow, deferyes the ferious regard and attention of the fynod. That it would have an evident tendency to the reviving and promoting of true religion, that the Lord's Supper ■mould be more frequently adminiftred among us, than what generally obtains, that holy ordinance being cele- brated only once a year in e^ch parifli, (excepting in a •few places) and, in fome parishes, but once in two years. That, Theological Differ taiions. 243 may fee if there is caufe for that ftrange and hi- deous outcry which has been raifed againft it. Others, better qualified for fuch a talk, have thought fit to decline it. Several of my Fathers and brethren, both at the meeting of fynod, and fince, have urged me to undertake it : But their That, if this be allowed, we muft add, that the man- ner in which this holy ordinance is commonly adminiftred among us, greatly obftru6ts the more frequent admini- stration of it ; and particularly the number of fermons on fuch occasions, and the many 'parifhes thereby laid vacant on the Lord's Day, are accompanied with leveral great inconveniences, if not alfo, too often, with fcan- dalous profanations of that holy Day. That from all this the committee are of opinion, it would be for the intereft and honour of religion, that fome method were devifed, whereby thefe inconveniencies and abufes might be avoided, and the Lord's Supper more frequently celebrated, agreeably to the word of God, to the apoftolic practice recorded therein, to the practice of the primitive church, and that of all other Proteftant churches, as well as to feveral overtures and acts of afTembly of this church in former times. That, in the opinion of the committee, it would anfwer this purpofe, if the Lord's Supper were celebrated at leaft four times a year, in every parifh ; and that only one day in the preceding week, either the Friday or Saturday, were employed in public fading or preparation ; and that the facrament were adminiftred on the fame S.ibbath iri all the parifhes of the fame prefbytery at leaft. And laftly, That it may be proper the fynod appoint the feveral presbyteries of their bounds to meet for con- sidering the above propofel, and report their judgment on the feveral articles thereof to the fynod, in April next, in order to the framing of an overture from their fynod to be tranfmitted to next general aflfembly; and that this be communicated to the correfpondents, to be laid before the neighbouring fynods, at their next meeting. The fynod, having heard and conlidered the above re- port, did approve of the fame, and accordingly tranf- mitted, &c. M 2 foUicita- 244 Theological DiJJertations. fo'llicitations would fcarce have moved me to pub- lifll any thing on the fubjecl, fo crude and indi- gcited as what follows, had not Tome circumftan- ces convinced me, that the filence of thofe who are convinced of the goodnefs of the overture has had much worfe effects, than could have flowed from even the weakefr. defence. The queftion, whether the fy nod's overture fhould be rejected or approved, depends on two fubordinate enquiries. Is the defign of difpen- fing the Lord's Supper in every congregation, at Jeaft four times a year, in itfelf good ? And are the means propofed for gaining that end, the moft proper, and lead exceptionable ? .§ 2. Let us begin with enquiring if the defign of difpenfmg the Sacrament thus often is in itfelf a good one. — And here let us for once fuppofe, that there is no Scripture precept or pattern ob- liging us to frequent communicating. Supposing this, it muft at leaft be allowed, there is no reftraint laid upon us, in the word of God, from partaking frequently of the Lord's Supper. If no precife time is fixed in Scripture for difpen- fmg and receiving it, and if no precife degree of frequency is injoined, yet none dare allege, that there is any time in which we are prohibited to difpenfe and receive that ordinance, or that any degree of frequency is abfolutely prohibited. From this it follows, that we are left at liberty to dif- penfe the Lord's Supper as often as is confident with the right performance of other religious ex- ercifes, and the due difcharge of ihe common du- ties of life. And if fuch a meafure of frequency is lawful, I venture a ftep further, and pronounce ct'.ry, yet at Jeaft in the higheft de- gree Theological Differ 'tations, . 245 gree expedient ? If the Lord's Supper is an ordi- nance of fo comforting and improving a nature, as almolt all acknowledge it, fhould we not ac- count the frequent enjoyment of it a privilege ? And if God has not deprived us of that privilege-, do we act a wife and friendly part for our own fouls, in depriving ourfelves of it? To give this argument its due force, let us confider a little the nature and defign of the LordS* Supper, and what benefits may be expected by thofe who worthily receive it. It is the ordinance our Lord Jefus has peculi- arly fet apart to keep up the remembrance of his fufTerings and death. There we fee the loving and lovely "Jefus laying down his life as a facrifice and atonement for our fins ; and fheddino; his precious blood to purchafe for us a happinefs large as our wifhes, and lairing as eternity. We fee the Lord of Life fuffering a painful, an ignomi- nious, an accurfed Death ; that by thus fulfilling the condition of the covenant of redemption, he might fecure grace and glory, and every good thing, not to us only, but to an innumerable ?nul~ titude, which no ?nan can number , of ail tongues^ and kindreds, and nations ^ and languages. We behold the heighth and depth, the length and breadth of divine love to a periming world : Of the Father's love in inflicting upon him fuch unparalleled fuf- ferings, that we might not fuffer | of his own love and condefcenfion in chearfuHv bearing them. We behold" the Son of Man glorified, in bearing that load of wrath, without fainting under it, which would have funk a whole world in irreco- verable mifery. We behold God glorified in him, and all the divine perfections fhining with utiited luftre, the juilice of God fweetly Combining with M 3 his 246 theological Dijfertations. his mercy to punifli our Surety, that we the of- fenders might be forgiven. From a deep a»d heart- affecting fenfe, that we, and all the chil- dren of Men, who obtain falvation, muft be wholly indebted to that amazing tranfaclion for obtaining it ; we are made to fay, " God forbid 44 that we fhould glory, fave in the crofs of 44 Chrift. We will remember thy love more * c than wine : We will rejoice in thy falvation ; 44 and in the name of thee our God will we lift 44 up our banners : For thou, Lord, haft made 44 us glad through thy work, and we will tri- 44 umph in the works of thy hands. Thanks be 44 unto God for his unfpeakable gift : And blefTed 44 be he who hath come in the name of the Lord 44 to fave us. Hofannah in the higheft." Afk your own hearts, Cbrjjrians 9 are you in any danger of remembering thefe things too much? And if you remember them at all, can you do it in any better method than that which infinite wifdom has prescribed ? Suppofe a Friend, who had received a deadly wound in defending us from danger, fhould, when about to expire, prcfent us with his piclure, and recommend it to us with his dying breath, to keep it as a token and remembrance of his friend- ship and afTecYion.^ — What would gratitude oblige us to do ? Would we cafr. it into fome by- corner out of fight? Would we fuiter it to be fullied with duft? or buried under lumber, negloclcd and forgotten ? Would we not rather hang it in our chief room ? Would we not honour it, not only by care to preferve it from abufe, but by fre- quent looks, thereby to renew, and, if poihble, to increafe an affectionate remembrance how much we were indebted to our departed Friend F — Can Theological Differ tations. 247 Can we then pretend to honour our Redeemer, when we anfwer his care in providing and recommend- ing his fupper as a reprefentative of his death, by a contrary care, in feeking pretences to lay it aiide ? § 3. The Lord's Supper is a vifible badge of ourChriftian profeffion. — Nature has taught man- kind, and God himfelf has confirmed it, that every religion fhould have fome folemn rite where- by it may be known to the very eye, from other religions. Circumcifion, the paflover, Sec. un- der the Mofaic ceconomy, were all intended, (not excluding other ends) to be figns between God and his people, i. e. rites whereby they might be diflinguifhed from idolaters: And therefore a terrible threatening was levelled againft the neg- leclers of thefe rites, that foul muji be cut eff from his people: He has put ofF the badge of my people, and therefore muft not fhare in their privileges. All this being highly rational, Cbrlftianity has its diftinguifhing rites, as well as Judaijm had. Prayer, thankfgiving, and fuch-like holy exer- cifes, are common to almoir. all religions, and obferved by the Jew, the Turk, and the Heathen as well as the Chriftian. — Baptifm we receive in our infancy, and without our own confent ; and therefore it cannot be the principal criterion of our Chriftian profeffion. — But by partaking of the Lord's Supper, we diitinguifn ourfelves from all who defpife the gofpel of Chriff, and teftify, in the mod public manner, our regard to a cru- cified Saviour, our concern to keep up the re- membrance of his death,' and our refolutions to adhere to him and his caufe, while by others he is difregarded and fet at naught, M 4 Our. 248 Theological Differ tations. Our Lord well knowing how loath we are to undertake any thing difficult, although for the fake of him who was our beft benefactor, would not burden us with any number of troublefome ceremonies : And therefore he only appointed this one ordinance, by which we mould openly declare ourfelves on Chrift's fide, and proclaim to the world our grateful, affectionate fenfe of his unparalleled love. Ought we not then to be frequent in thus openly confejfing Chrift before men, while too many are ajhamed of him and bis words in ibis adulterous and perverfe generation? The Lord's Supper is alfo intended as a feal and confirmation of the fulnefs and freedom of the offers of grace in the everlafting gofpel. For as really as the minifter offers the bread and wine to the communicants, fo really God the Father offers Chrift, the bread of life, to every one of us for the' nourifhment of our fouls. — And are there any, whofe faith is fo lively and vigorous, that they feldom need the help of this ordinance to ftrengthen and increafe it ? Is not the Lord's Supper an ordinance, in which God is often pleafed to vouchfafe fpecial commu- nion with himfelf, and his Son Jefus Chrift ? Does it not greatly tend, through the divine blef- fing, to ftrengthen the communion of the myftical body of Chrift, and to warm and enlarge our af- fection to all who love our Lord Jefus in fince- rity ? Does it not often prove meat indeed, and drink indeed to the fainting foul ; a means to convey large meafures of fpiritual nourifhment and grov/th in "grace? Indeed fuitable impremons of Chrift** loving us, and giving himfelf for us a facrifice and an offering to GW, of a fweet fmell- ing favour, are the great means by which holy difpofitions Theological Dtjfertations, 249 difpofitions are begun, carried on, and perfected in the foul. And what can tend more to awaken a lively fenfe of thefe things, than beholding the fymbols of the broken body and ihed blood of Chrift? How many, who went to the Lord's table feeble and faint-hearted, have received fuch plenteous communications of light and life from the glorious head of influences, that they have been made to renew th&ir ftrength, to mount up- with wings as eagles, to run and not be weary* to walk and not faint I Who is there amongft us, whofe need of the Lord's Supper, for one or other of the above purpofes, does not frequently return ? Has then God provided for us fo rich an entertainment ? Does he allow us often to regale ourfelves with it j yea, even invite us in the moft warm and earned manner ? And, is it not a contempt of the goodnefs and condefcenfion of God, and in- juring our own fpiritual interefts, to neglect any opportunity of fitting down at the table of the Lord ? " Our foul neceflities, fays the judicious " Mr, Willifon (d)> do call for frequency in " partaking: For we are oft ready to forget 46 Chrift, and therefore we oft need this ordi- " nance to bring him to our rememberance- We * c are oft fubject to fpiritual deadnefs, weaknefs. " of faith, and decays of grace ; arid there- " fore have frequent need of this ordinance for " ftrength and quickening.. There is ground to " fear, that the unfrequent celebration and par- 4C ticipation of this bJeffed feafr, which Chrift. " hath prepared for us, is an evil that many in (d) Sacramental Catechifm, p. 86. and Preface,, p. 9. M 5: ' " this 250 Theological Differtations. «* this church are chargeable with, and for which 44 the Lord may plead a controverfy with us. " How can we expect but he will depart from " us, when we ftand at fuch a diftance from " him, and come fo feldom near him in the me- " thod he hath appointed ? Can we look for the tc fmiles of Chrift's countenance, when we live t4 fo much in the neglect of his dying words ? Is <4 it any wonder our hearts are fo hard, when we are fo feldom applying the blood of Chrift for foftening them ; or that our graces be fo *' weak and withered, when we fo little ufe the " means for Strengthening and cherifhing them ? " Is not the frequent ufe of this ordinance, in iC the way Chrift hath appointed, an excellent ). (3. J The other exercifes mentioned here, in con- junction with breaking of bread, are all of them re- ligious exercifes* attendance on the apoftle's do- clrine, fellowfhip, prayer. What then hath breaking of common bread to do in fuch com- pany ? It adds ftrength to this argument, that Juftin Martyr (q) and Tertullian (r) mention the Lord's Supper, and the other exercifes of which Luke here fpeaks, as ffated exercifes of the wor- shipping affemblies of chriftians. '(4.) The Sy- riac verfion of the New Teftament, which is the beit and oldeft extant, and probably was com- pofed in the apoflolic times, if not by the apojiies themfelves, as Mr. Jones has ftrongly (hewn, in (m) Luke xxii. 19. and xxiv. 30, 35. A&s ii. 42, 46. A6ls xx. 7, 11. and xxvii. 35, («) 1 Cor. x. 16. and xi. 24. (0) Tertul. de Orat. cap. xxiv. (p) Ad Ephef. cap. xx. p. 19. (q) Juftin Martyr Apol. ii. p. 98. (;•) Tertullian Apol. cap. xxxix. his "Theological Differ tations. 259 his excellent book on the canon ; that verfion, I fay, interprets breaking of bread, of the eucha- rift : and moil of the fathers were of the fame opinion (s). — From all this we may infer, that in the public afiernblies of the primitive chrifti- ans, breaking of bread in remembrance of Chrifr, was as ftated an exercife as attending on the apo- ftle's doclrine, joining in prayer together, or communicating to the neceflities of their poor brethren. § 9. It is faid of the fame perfons, Aclsii. 46. And they continuing daily with one accord in the tem- ple, and breaking bread in a houfe, did participate the food with gladnefs and fmglenefs of heart* Suppofe we were to retain the common tran- flation, breaking of bread from houfe to houfe, that Would be no conclufive argument, that the Lord's fupper is not intended : for the multitude of the faithful might render it inconvenient for all to partake of the facrament in one houfe, and on that account, it might have been difpenfed fuc- ceffively, in different houfes. But our tranflation is plainly faulty, and the caufe of the mifrake is eafily traced out :. kzB* Dfx^itv, in the firft claufe of the verfe, fignifies daily, or from day to day : and hence it was ima- gined, kat' 01X.QV muft fignify, in every houfe, or from houfe to houfe : whereas it is evident, from the ufe of the prepofition Kara, when applied to place, that it denotes fome precife determinate place. See Luke viii. 39. x. 32, 33. xv. 14, and xxiii. 5. Acts ix. 42. xi. 1. xiii. 1. and xvi. 7. 1 Cor. xvi. 19. Col. iv. 15. Philem. ver. 2, (s) Vide Suiceri Thef. torn. ii. p. 105. And Obf. Sacr. p. 130. and l6o Theological Differ tations. and never relates to more places than one, ex- cept the fubftantive to which it is joined be in the plural number, as Luke xiii. 22. Acts v. 15. viii. 1, 3. and xx. 20. or be connected with an adjeclive denoting univerfality, as Acts xv. 36. Accordingly Scaliger obferves, that in an old Roman inicription, TAfj.iav rov zcna wo,\tv, does not fignify the treafurer of every town, or the trea- surer from town to town, but the treafurer cf the town, viz. Rome. To confirm, thefe remarks, I might obferve, that neither the Arabic nor Sy- riac verfion renders katoikov from hcufe to hcuje, but only at home, or in a houje. The temple being a houfe of prayer for all na- tions, that part of worihip the diiciples were at liberty to perform there, and accordingly they continued daily with one accord in the temple* But they could not difpenfe the facrament there, without drawing upon themfelves certain deduc- tion. They were therefore under a necefTity of holding private conventicles for that purpoie, in places where they might be in lefs danger of di- sturbance. Both Jews and Profelytes were careful to pro- vide a large upper room in their houfes for religi- ous exercifes. What more probable, than that the primitive chriltians having performed their daily devotions in the temple, at the hour of prayer, ihould then repair to a large upper room to partake of the Lord's fupper, perhaps that very upper room in which our Lord infiituted the fa- crament, Mark xiv. 15, 22. and where the eleven continued, with Mary, in prayer and Amplica- tion, Ads i. 13, 14 (/). This is the more likely (t) Vide Jof. Mede, in Operilms, p. 31a Gregor. in Obfer. Sacr. cap. iii. & Peiibniutn in Le&iombus ad A£tus Apoftolicos, p. 31. from Theological Differ tations. 16 1 \ from what we are told, Acts v. 42. Daily in the ! temple and in a houfe, (for fo it mould be render- ed ) they ceafed not to teach and preach Jefus Chriji. In the temple, to convert infidels ; in the private houfe, to flrengthen and confirm believers. From this paflage, it is probable, that the church at Jerufalem received the Lord's Supper every Day. § 10. The next pafTage, to our purpofe, is A&s xx. 7. And upon the fir ft day of the week, when the difciples came together to break bread, Paul preach- ed unto them, &c. From this pafTage it is plain, (1.) That it was the cuftom of the firft christians to keep the Lord's day holy, or as a day appointed for religious wor- {hip, and accordingly to hold their public folemn afiemblies on that day. St. Paul did not call them together as he did the elders of the church, ver. 1 7. but the difciples were themfelves rvvtiypsvoi, met in their afTembly. The context informs, that Paul tarried at Troas feven days. Tho' he was hafting to Jerufalem, he did not, as he ea- fily might have done, fummon an extraordinary afjembly on any of thefe days, but contented him- felf with more private labours ; and chofe ra- ther to delay his journey till the return of the firft day of the week, when he was fure of a full ajfembly of chriftians. (2.) The great de- fign of their meeting was to break bread, i. e. to celebrate the Lord's Supper. This was with them a conftant branch of the fan&ification of the fabbath : and perhaps their thus remembering the death of Chrift on that day, is none of the leaft caufes of its being termed the Lord's day. It adds probability to this, that Chryfoftom (u) terms Qc) Chryfoft. Horn. v. de Refur. the 262 Theological Differ tations. the Sabbath the day of bread. Shall we then, on the Lord's day, omit an exercife from which it principally derives fo honourable a. name ? § 11. That in all church meetings the Lord's Supper was difpenfed, is further evident from 1 Cor. xi. 20, 21. The apoftle had faid a little be- fore, that their meeting together was not for the better, but for the worfe : this he proves from their behaving themfelves fo in thefe meet- ings, that they neither did nor could eat the Lord's Supper as became that holy inftitution. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper , i.e. it is not fo to do it as that facred action ought to be performed. Now, this argument evidently fuppofes, that whenever they affembled together, they came to eat the Lord's Supper ; for otherwife their coming together, fo as not to eat the Lord's Supper, would be no proof that their coming together was for the worfe. Had the apoftle charged the Corinthians* as guilty in fome particular meet- ings in which the Lord's Supper was immediately Concerned, we had then underftood, that it was not a conftant exercife in their worfhipping af~ femblies : but on the contrary he charges them with profaning the Lord's fupper in all their meetings : and what is termed coming together, ver. 17. coming to the church, ver. 18. coming to one place, ver. 19. is termed coming together to eat, ver. 33 (w.) Which fhews, that whenever the chri- (jw) Coming together to eat is an expreflion as liable to be perverted by the Papilts, for excluding the laity from the cup, as Luke xxiv. 30. and A&s ii. 42. But none, to ward off that filly argument, have ever laid that the paf- fage has no relation to the facrament. Why then need they fay fo in thefe other instances ? ftians theological Dtjfertations. 263 flians met together in one place for religious exercifes, eating of bread was a part of their employment. SECTION II. \KT E have, in the preceding fe&ion, tJemon- * * ftrated, from the facred oracles, that, in the days of the apoftles, difpenfing the facrament was as ftated an exercife in the meetings of the faithful, as Prayer, hearing the word, or collect- ing for the fupply of their needy brethren ; and that accordingly in the church at Jerufalem, they had daily communions, and in every church com- munions at leafr. once a week. Let us next view how this pattern has been regarded or flighted in after- ages, and with what fuccefs. How the firft ages of the church conducted themfelves in this matter, is well known to all in the leaft converfant with church hiftory : fo that I need only refer fuch to a few of the many who have writ on this fubjecT: (#), and fave my- felf the trouble of faying any thing about it. But, for the fake of my unlearned readers, I (hall give a fhort abridgment of what may be found more at large in thefe writers. The practice of thofe who lived in the very infancy of the church, muft deferve peculiar re- gard. Their thorough acquaintance with the ftile in which the New Teftament was writ, the (x) Calvini Inft. lib. iv. cap. 17. § 44. — 46. Buddei Inft. Theol. Dogrn. lib. v. cap. 1. § 19. Dr. Cave's pri- mitive Chriftianity, Part I. cap, n. Sir Peter King oh the church, Part II. chap. 7. § 6. Waterland en the eu- ckarift, chap. xiv. cufloms 264 'Theological Differ tat ions. cuftoms to which it alludes, and with many other peculiarities which are now almoft buried in obfcurity ; but efpecially their converiing with the apoftles, or their immediate difciples, muft give them great advantages for underftanding the religion of Jefus. And as many of them fealed their doctrine with their blood, we cannot rea- fonably entertain the leaft fufpicion, that they would dare knowingly to alter the leaft circum- ftance in the lair, the dying command of their dear mailer. § 2. Pliny, in his epiftle to the emperor Tra- jan (£), wrote about the year of Chrift no, which was only fix years after the death of the evangelift St. John, acquaints the emperor, that he had found nothing to alledge againft the chri- ftians, but their obftinacy in their fuperftition : and that it was their cuftom to meet together on a fet day before it was light, and to fing a hymn to Chrift as God, and to bind themfelves by the facrament, that they would commit no wicked- nefs. Juftin Martyr, who wrote, A. D. 155. is ano- ther witnefs (e). On the day, fays he, that is called Sunday, all the chriftians meet together, becaufe that is the day of our Saviour's refur- rection, and then we have read to us the writings of the prophets and apoftles. This done, the prefident makes a fpeech, exhorting the people to praclife what they have heard. Then we all join in prayer : then bread, wine, and water are brought forth, and the prefident having again (b) Plin.. ep. lib. 10. Ep. 97. Seqxie facramento ob- ftringere, &c. (r) Juftin Martyr, Apol. ii. p. 98. Til £i Toy YiAiov hiyoy.zvq H/zspct, &c. poured Theological Differ tations. 265 poured out prayers and praifes to God, there is a diltribution and communication made of the facramental elements. Laft of all, thofe that are willing and able contribute what they think fit for the relief of the indigent. How exact- ly does this account of the worfhip of the pri- mitive church tally with that of St. Luke, Acts ii. 42 ? Tertullian, who lived about A. D. 200 (^/), takes notice of fome, who declined receiving the fa- crament on the ftationary days (Wednefdays and Fridays) for fear of breaking their faft ; and blames them for this as a foolifh fcruple. — This pafTage not only proves that he thought it a duty incumbent on the faithful to communicate as often as poffible, but that it was then a common practice, to communicate on other days as well as Sundays. Minutius Felix, who flouriined A. D. 230. {peaks of the chriftians aflembling to eat on a foiemn day () Chryfoft. in 1 Cor. x. Horn. xxv. (?) Concil. Tol. i. can. v. xiii. From Theological Differ tations. 269 From this decree it is plain, that tho' the fa- crament was daily difpenfed to fuch as were wil- ling to receive, yet, that the neglect of that or- dinance had begun to infect the clergy as well as the people. Yet hitherto this was a fault, with which only particular perfons were chargeable, and warmly teftified againft, not only by the moft eminent fathers, but by the public canons of ths church. But about the year 410, St. Auguftine being confulted, whether it was beft to communicate daily, or on fuch particular days when we were beft prepared, gave this anfwer, <; Neither he *f who communicates daily, nor he who does " not, really difhonours the Lord's body and 4t blood, while both contend only in a different tc way, who fha!l do moft honour to the bleffed '* facrament. For neither did Zaccheus and the " centurion flrive together, or one prefer him- *' felf before the other, when the former gladly *' received our Lord into his houfe, and the lat- * c ter faid, / am not worthy that thou Jhouldjl come " under my roof. Both did honour to our Savi- " our, tho' in contrary ways, and both found " mercy. So here, one out of reverence dares " not partake every day ; another from the fame " reverence dares not omit it a fingle day. All " is well, fo long as in either cafe the ordinance " is not contemned (r)." It is probable this decifioh gave the firft rife to the notion, that men might pay their reverence to the facrament by turning their back upon it; and that our Lord's command, Do this in remembrance of me> was as much honoured by forbearing his table as by fre- (r) Auguftin. ep. cxviii. ad Januar. N 3 quent 270 T'be&logical Differ tati ens. a/ enting it. And indeed it is flrange, that even :ne name of St. Auguftin could make fuch a no- .ion blindly followed. However we muft ob- serve, as fome excufe for that worthy Father, that the queftion propofed to him was, Shall a man communicate every day ? But had the queftion been, Is communicating once or thrice a year fuifi- cient? he, no .doubt, would have anfwered, No; and recommended weekly communions, zs Ge?i- naclius did, in the clofe of the fame century, tho' he would give no decifion as to daily communis oris (s), I might add, it is plain, from Socrates' and Sozomenes' church hill cries (f), that weekly communions were greatly kept up til] the laft year 4.C0. Socrates, however, tells us of two excep- tions. " Whereas, fays he, ail 'churches through " the world, on the Sabbath day, in every revolu- fcC tion of the week, celebrate the myfteries, they * s of Alexandria, and they of Rome, on a cer- •' tain, antient tradition, have refufed to do it." )y the church of Rome was principal, that of Alexandria only accefibry, in this peculiarity : • ndria drawing confiderable Turns of Rome, for the corn with which ^fhe Yxirruihzd Lnat cit\, might the eafier be led to imitate ihs Roman cuiloms: However others too Coon followed dktsrtpattecn. We fee then tozvhat w? otve the nzrteci 0] iveekiy communions, .even to the j aditions of the church cf Rome. At length communicating wecldv, or even noi,,,i ; W appear burdenfome. The *ft part r&cejvjefcl the facrament only three (.<) Gennadius inter Auguft. op. torn. viii. app. p. 78. Ed. Benqd. (0 Socratis, lib, v. cap. ai. & Sozo- •i, .tii. lib. vii. cap. 19. time'; Theological Differtations. tji times a year, and feme not fo often- This oc- cafioned the council of Agde or Agatha in Lan- guedoc, met in the year 506, to decree, thaj none fhould be efteemed good Chriftians who did not communicate at leaft at the three great fefti- vals, Ch nil mas, Eafter, and Whitfunday (a) ; and accordingly, from that time forward, thole of the church of Rome efteemed themfelves, in fo far good enough. Chriftians, if they communi- cated thrice a year, and that it was prefumption to receive oftener (v). But in the Greek church, which was more diftant from the fountain of cor- ruption, it was ufual to communicate weekly, even fo low as the feventh century ; and fuch as neglected three Weeks together were excommuni- cated (iv). And in the eighth Century, Bede gave it as his opinion, that daily communions would be highly falutary to Chriftians *. But that opi- nion not being very confident with the doclrine of tranfubftantiation, which now began to be broached in the church, met with but fmall re- gard ; fo that in a fhort time it became the ge- neral practice to communicate only once a year, at Eailer ; and this the council of Trent feem to account fufficient (x). * It was then the church of Rome which intro- duced feldom communicating ; for which, as for all their Innovations ^ they pretended an aniient Tradition \ and by which they aliedged mens re- verence for that ordinance would be heightened ; And indeed fo it was, till Veneration gradually in- (») Concil Agath. Can. xviii. () Theodor. Penitent, p. 40. * Vide Let. v. (*) Concil. Tiid. SefiT. 13. Can. g. N 4 creafaig iji Theological Differ teutons. creafing, at length produced Adoration^ and the b-Jafphemous abfurdity of a Wafer God. A firik- ing inftance how dangerous it is for Chriftians to pretend to fecure reverence to the inftitutions of their Lord, by methods different from thofe which he himfelf has appointed ; and that it is our only fafety to adhere to the plan delivered us in the writings and practice of thofe who were under the infallible guidance of the Spirit, without turn- ing afide to the right-hand or to the left. If we do otherwife, how prudent foever our meafures may feern, and however pious our intentions may really be, we have in fo far rejected the word of the Lord ; and what wifdoin can there be in us? § 4. The reader may poffibly now expeel an account what has been the practice of the pureft reformed churches in this matter : But my fmall acquaintance with books, which can throw light on this inquiry, permits me to fay but little on this head. In Bohemia the holy fupper is ufually cele- brated four times a year. They difpenfe it oftener when the need of the faithful requires it ; but thus often they enjoin it to be difpenfed for the fake of uniformity (y). A national fynod of the Protefrants in France, met at Charinton 1644, give it as their judg- ment, " That though the Lord's Supper is dif- " penfed in their church only four times a year, " greater frequency would be defirable, the re- < c verence requifite at the Lord's Table being " preferved, that fo Saints might increafe in faith, (y) Account of the church order and discipline in the unny of the brethren of Bohemia, chap. iii. § 4. " through Theological Differ t 'a lions . 273 " through frequent partaking of the facrament, me, for I am holier than thou. The more w r e have, iii (z) La Difcipline des Eglifes Reformes de France, cap. xii. § 14.. (a) Joiinfon's unbloody Sacrifice, part ii. p. 151. (b) Calvoer de tit. eel. t. i. p. 75,8. (<-) Buddei Inft. Theol. Dogm. lib. v. cap. 1. § 19. (J) Canon x::i, of the Province of Canterbury.. N 5 of 274 theological Dijfertations. of true religion, the more will we have of a humble, teachable difpofition, and a willingnefs to be inftructed, even by our weaker brethren. I wifh i Cor. xii. 21. cif feq. were more confider- ed. Progrefs in reformation can never be ex- pected, when the beft things are rejected that other churches pradYife, under pretence of guard- ing againft their corruptions. I cannot but ob- ferve, that Cartwright (e) and Calderwood (f) charged the church of England with too feldom communicating. So different was the opinion of thefe great and good men, from that which now prevails. And I am well informed, that a great part of thofe who were ejected for non-confor- mity in Charles IPs time, difpenfed the facra- ment monthly. I have now in my cuftody, ma- nufcript Memoirs of a private Chi iftian, who lived in the time of the civil wars in England, who, I find, received the facrament, with great profit, the f.rft Lord's Day of every months at the meet- ing where Mr. Afh, a member of the Weftmin- $er aflembly, and Mr. Robrough, one of their icribes, were minifters : And that if any incident prevented the difpenfing the* facrament the firft Sabbath of the month, it was done, if poffible, the Sabbath next following (g). The churches in New 1 England have no times univerfally ftated for their celebration of the Eu- eharifr. Some have it once in four weeks^ fome in fur, fome in eight: Some the firft Lord's Day in every Kalendar month, and fome the la'ft. And (e) Cartwright's Reply to Whitglft, p. 117. (f) Calderwooci's Altare Dam a fee num. (g) The manuicript is intitled, The Growth of a Cbr?fl'ia>!> and was km me by Mr. William Hog, merchant in Edin- burgh. the Theological JDifjertaticns. 275 the paftors reServe to themselves a liberty of al- tering the times as they judge fit upon emergen- cies. The pallor gives notice a week before- hand, that the Lord's Supper is to be difpenfed. In moft places there are held private meetings of Chriftians on Come day of the week preparatory' to the communion : And it is a frequent thing for the paftor to be prefent at fome or other of them;- -or elfe, perhaps, to hold a public lec- ture (h). From the form of difpenfing the Sacraments, compofed by Calvin for the ufe of the church of Geneva (/), it appears, that the Lord's Day pre- ceding, intimation was made to the people, that they might prepare for that holy ordinance ; and that ftrangers, who inclined to communicate, might converfe with the minifter. On the Sa- crament Day, the minifter, at the end of the Sermon, explained the defign of that ordinance, and how it ought to be received : Or, if he judged it neceflary, Spent his whole Sermon on' that SubjecL How often in the year the Sacra- ment was difpenfed, is not there mentioned ; but from Calvin's zeal to revive even weekly com- municating, it is probable it was at leafi once a month: especially as Calvin approved the Book' of common Order of the Englifh church at Ge- neva, where Knox was minifter ; which Book takes notice, that the Lord's Supper was com- monly ufed by them once a month, So oft as the congregation think expedient (J?). (b) Cotton Mother's Account of the Difcipllne in the Churches in New England, p. 95, 96. (f) Apud Calvini Trad. Theclog. p. 39, + o. (£) Bock .of common Qkxfcr, &cJ Preamble to chap, x, N 6 I had 2j6 Theological Differ 'tations. I had almoft forgot to take notice, that the Greek church celebrate the facrament every Sun- day, and folemn Feftival> in their great churches, and that the laity are obliged to receive it four times a year (m). § 5. I now go on to reprefent the practice of our own church in her belt tirr.es. Before the reformation, in the year 1558, the hw godly preachers that were in the kingdom, were forced by perfecution (like the primitive Chriftians, Acls ii. 46.) to teach God's word, and adminifter the facrament in the fields, or in private houfes (n) : fo that their fituation did not admit of ftated times for communicating. The 29th of April 1560, the great council of Scotland, laid their orders upon fix minifters, whereof Mr. John Knox was one, to commit to writing their judgment touching the reformation of religion. Upon this they drew up the firft book of difcipline, and prefented it to the great council, May 20th, 1560. Mp. Knox warmly urged, that it fhould be publickly approved. And though he could not obtain this, yet, as private men, the whole body of the firft Reformers figned it, the 17th January, 156 1, acknowledging it to be good, and according to God's word, and promifing to fet it forward to the uttermoft of their power. The general aiTemblies, July 30th, 1562, December 25th, 1562, and December 25th, 1563, feem to confider it as binding on the church. Their opinion touching the times of difpenfing the Lord's Supper, they give in thefe words (0), (02) Smith's Account of the Greek Church. (0) Mr. "Wodiow's manufcript of Mr. Row's Hiftory, p. 5. (0) Firft Book of Difcipline, chap. xi. § 5. of Dun* JojTs edition. " Four Theological Differ tations. 277 M Four times in the year we think fufficient to « 4 the adminiftration of the Lord's Table, which 44 we deiire to be diftincled, that the fuperfti- 44 tions of times may be avoided fo far as may 44 be ; for your honours are not ignorant how 44 fuperftitioufly the people run to that action at 4$ Pafehe, even as if that time gave virtue to the «* facrament; and how the reft of the whole year 44 they are carelefs and negligent, as if it apper- 44 tained not unto them, but at that time only. 44 We think therefore moft expedient, that the 44 iirft Sunday of March be appointed for one" 44 time to that fervice : the firft Sunday of June 44 for another j the firft Sunday of September for 44 the third ; and the firft Sunday of December 4f for the fourth. We do not deny, but any fe- 44 veral kirk, for reafonable caufes, may change 44 the time, and may minifter oftener ; but we 44 ftudy to reprefs fuperftition." An injunction follows to catechife, efpecially fuch whofe know- ledge was fufpecled, before the adminiftration of the facrament. But there is not the leaft hint of week-day's fermons before or after the com- munion. At the fourth general aflembly which was holden at Edinburgh, December 25th, 1562, and of which Mr. John Knox was moderator, it was concluded, " That an uniform order fhould be 44 kept in the adminiftration of the facraments, 44 folemnisation of marriage, and burial of the 44 dead, according to the book of Geneva. Item^ 44 That the communion be miniftred four times in 44 the year within burrows, and twice in the year 44 in the country pariihes. The fuperintendents " were appointed to confer with the Lords of ^ Secret 278 theological DiJJtrtatiom. 44 Secret Council anent the charges to be beftow- 44 ed for the elements at the Lord's Supper (p-)" It being reported in the general aflembly holden at Montrofe, in March 1600, that fome abftained from the communion, under colour of deadly feuds, and other light caufes, it was ordained, 44 That the prefbyteries command every particu- lar miniiler, within their bounds, to take up the names of all within their parifh, that they may communicate every year once at leail ; and thereafter fummon them to compear be- fore the prefbyteries, to hear and fee them- a 44 felves ordained to communicate within three months 44 after the charge (y)." From this it feems plain, that the facrament was then difpenfed once every three months ; and this is my only defign in mentioning it; for in other refpe£ts it was highly blame-worthy. The general alTembly met at Glafgow, 1638, appointed a committee to confider what conftitu- tions fhould be revived or made of new. The 1 2th article of their report was " anent or- 44 der to be taken that the Lord's Supper be more " frequent)' tidminijiered. both in burgh and land* " ward, than it hath been thefe years bygone ; 44 it were expedient that the a£r. at Edinburgh, 44 December 25th, 1562, be renewed, and fome 44 courfe be taken for furnifhing the elements, 44 where the minifter of the parifh hath allow- 44 ance only for once in the year (r)." This fhews, that in the times betwixt 1600 and 1638, (f) Mr. Wodrow's copy of Calderwood's manufcript tiittory, vol. I. p. 792. See alfo Calderwood's printed Hiftory, p. Si 6. (q) Ibid. p. 837. ' (r) A&s ©f the general affembly from 1638 to 1649, p. 50. feldom theological Differ taf ions i 279 feldom communicating had again crept in. We all know thefe times were none of the bed. How- ever, even then there were fome, and thefe the beft friends of the Presbyterian intereft, who dif- penfed the communion oftener than once a year. I need only mention the celebrated Mr. David Dickfon, then at Irvin, who difpenfed the com- munion twice in the year (s) ; and Mr. Robert Blair, who difpenfed it four times in the year, at Jeaft after he went over to Bangor, in the county of Down in Ireland, where he was a chief In- strument of the great revival of religion in that corner (/). If I had Ieifure to confult the printed or manufcript Lives of other eminent men in thefe times, I doubt not but many fuch instances could be given.— But to return; the good men (s) Chriftians from many other flaces of the country re- forte d to the co?nmunions at Irvin invoice in the year. Ac- count of Mr* Dickfon in Livingftone's manufcript Ac- count of the Minifters and Profeflbrs of his Time, p. 144.. of Mr. Wodrow's copy. if) The work of the'Lord began to profper. Mr. Cun- ingham of Holy wood helped us very much, and his little parifh was a good example to ours. We often preached the one for the other. We agreed alfo among ourfdves to celebrate the facrament of the Lord's Supper eight days in the year, four in his, and four in mine. So that pro- ficients in both did all thefe times communicate together. Mr. Biair's manufcript Account of his own Life, p. 71, of Mr. William Hog's copy. It is evident from that farme manufcript, p. 94, — 97. that the minifters in the bounds of the county of Down and Antrim, who were many of them Scotfmen, had, at leaft, one ftranger af- fifting at their communions, and a fermon on the Satur- day, and another on the Monday. But all this was in the church where the facrament was difpenfed. For Mr. Blair mentions it as fomething unufual, that by an un- expected croud, he was obliged to preach in the court of a Caftle. concerned z8o Theological Differ tations.. concerned in the Reformation 1638, were fincerely defirous to promote greater frequency in remem- bering the dying love of Jefus. And accordingly the AfTembly referred the above-mentioned article to the Committee 's report to the confideration of Prefbyteries j and declared that the charges fhould rather be paid out of that day's collection, than that the congregation want the more frequent ufe of the facrament. A pamphlet was printed at Edinburgh, 1641, intitled, The Order and Difcipline of the Church of Scotland. The author only obferves in the gene- ral, that the Lord's Supper is more frequently miniftered in fome congregations than in others, but he does not mention how often in any. He informs us, p, 21. " The Sabbath next, before " the communion fhall be celebrated, public " warning thereof is made by the paftor, and of " the doctrine of preparatio/i to be taught the " laft day of the week, or at leaft towards the " end of the week, that the communicants may " be the better prepared by the ufe of the means m both in public and private." Here is no men- tion of any other minifter's affifting the minifter of the parifh, nor of any Faji-Days or Thank 'f- giving-Days regularly obferved before and after the facrament. On the contrary, it is faid, p. 24. ii The communion being thus celebrated in the tc forenoon, the people meet again in the after- « c noon, at which time the minifter teacheth the. << doctrine of thankfgiving, and clofeth the public and flrengthened with new and " f re Jh reflations to ferve the Lord" In theological Differ tat'ions-. 281 In the 14th Seinon of the Affembly met at v E- dinburgh 1645, °f which Mr. Robert Douglafs was Moderator, the opinion of the committee for keeping the greater uniformity in this Kirk was Jaid before them, and, after ferious confideration, approved in all its articles, and ordained to be obferved in all time hereafter. Among other things they injoined, " That there be no read- 44 ing in the time of communicating, but the 44 minifter make a fhort exhortation at every 44 Table 3 that thereafter there be Silence during 44 the time of the communicants receiving, ex- 44 cept only when the minifter exprefTeth fome 44 few fhort fentences, fuitable to the prefent 44 condition of the communicants in their receiv- 44 ing, that they may be incited and quickened 44 in their meditations in the aclion. That when 44 the communion is to be celebrated in a parith, 44 one Minifter may be employed for a/lifting the 44 minifter of the parifh, or, ai the mo/?, two'. 44 That there be one Sermon of preparation, deli- 44 vered in the ordinary place of public worfhip, <4 upon the day immediately preceding. That 44 before the ferving of the tables, there be only 44 one fermon delivered to thofe who are to com- 44 municate, and that in the fame Kirk there be 44 one fermon of thankfgiving after the commu- 44 nion is ended. That the minifter who cometh ** to aftift, have a fpecial care to provide his own 44 parim, left otherwife while he is about to mi- 44 nifter comfort to others, his own flock be left 44 deftitute of preaching («)•" (u) A6h of the General AtTembly from 1638 to 1649, p. 267, 268. It 2S2 theological Differ tations. It is now time to enquire, how the prefent rarenefs of communions, and the multitude of week-days fermons before and- after them, was firft introduced. And all I can do, is to mention two or three probable conjectures, as I know no certain account of that matter. It began, fays one, in the perfecuting times, when many miniiters under hiding, and the whole Prefbyterians of a country, by flealth, got toge- ther. And when they met for this end, it may be once in feveral years, they knew not how of- ten to preach ; and the people had a boundlefs appetite to hear, fo long as they could be fubfifted and fafe. But though the periecution they were under fufficiently excufed their fo feldom receiv- ing the Lord's Supper, is it pofiible for us to vin- dicate our conduct, who live in quiet and peace- able times ? It was neceffity with them, and therefore not blame-worthy : It mull be choice with us, and therefore criminal. The author of Dan in Beerfheba, gives the following account of the matter, from two books printed at London, 1657, (viz. Uldericus Veridi- cusfive de ftatu Ecclefice Scoticana. And, A true Re- presentation of the Rife, Progrefs? and State of the Diviftom in the Church of Scotland?) both of them writ by public Refolutioners. The General Af- fembly fay they, in the year 1645, did eftablifh an order for preventing confufion in the celebra- tion of the facrament, with which the whole church were fatisfied. Yet, fince our divifions, our dif- fenting brethren have taken up a new and irregu- lar way of difpenfing the holy Supper, whereby they have turned it, either into a theatrical pomp, or into the Popijb error of opus operatum. It is but ieldom they difpenfe this ordinance. But when it comes Theological Differ taiions. 283 comes to be adminiftrated in a church where any of them is minifter, even they who are in the rernoteft parts of the kingdom, being warned, Hock to them. To thofe of their own party, of whatever parifli, the heavenly bread is distributed, while moft of their own parifhioners are excluded. 'They have a great many minifters afiifting them, fix or feven, nay, fometimes double that number, whole congregations are generally left deftitute of preaching that day. Every day of their meet- ing, viz. Saturday, the Lord's Day, and Mon- day, (N. B. They had then no Fajl-Days), many of thefe minifters do preach fucceilively one after another ; fo that three or four, or fometimes more, do preach at their Preparation, and as many on the Monday following. And on the Sabbath fometimes three or four preach before they go to the Action, befides thofe who preach to the mul- titude of the people, who cannot be contained in the church. Never before were there fo many fermons in any church in fo fiiort a time. Thefe practices, as they are a clear violation of the or- der unanimoufly efiablifhed in the church, ana* do occafion great animofity and alienation of fimple people againft thofe mini-tiers who will not imitate thofe irregular courfes j fo uninterefted obfervers perceive a clear defign in all this, to fet up themfelves as the only zealous and pious people, worthy to be trufted and' followed in our public differences i Which if it be not an injury to that facred ordinance, and an improving that, which fhould be a bond of unity and communion, to be a wedge to drive and fix a rent, let the ju- dicious and fober judge. — Poflibly fome of thefe reflections were too fevere, and dictated by Party Spirit : 284 Theological Dijfertations-- Spirit; yet there is ground to think they were not wholly without foundation. It is not improbable, that the practice of the minifters of the counties of Down and Antrim, about 1626, many of whom afterwards came over to Scotland, might contribute to multiply fermons, particularly in the fields, before and after com- munions. But when the fpirit is carrying on a remarkable work of conviclion and converfion, as he then was in thefe counties, things may be fit, which at other times would be highly unfea- fonable {v). After the Revolution, the Lord's Supper conti- nued to be feldom adminiftered ; fermons on the Faft-Day, Saturday, and Monday, were kept up, and many minifters employed to affift. The ge- neral aftembly 1701, to remedy thefe things, re- commended it to prefbyteries, " to take care, *' that the facrament of the Lord's Supper be •• more frequently adminiftered in their bounds ; " and that the number of minifters to ferve " thereat be reftricled, fo that neighbouring churches " be not thereby caft defolate on the Lord's « Day («;)." The fixth act of the afiembly 171 1, gives fo ftrong a proof of the zeal of our church for fre- quent communicating, that I cannot but infert it intire. " The general aftembly confidering, "■ that, in fome places, the facrament of the " Lord's Supper is adminiftered only in the Sum- " mer feafon, where-through people are deprived " of the benefit of that holy ordinance during the " reft of the Tear, do therefore recommend to ( the true Chriftians are now, and that even in the facrament they were very culpable - 3 and yet Paul feeketh not to cure them by their feldomer communicating. Thus far Mr. Baxter. A worthy minifler in the fhire of Air, in a letter to me, dated October 10th, argues thus, " What a reproach is it to the church of Scot- " land, which boafts of a farther degree of re- -form ation than even fome other proteftant " churches, to fall fo far, I had almoft faid, fo " fcandaloufly fhort of them all, in commemo- c< rating the dying love of our bleffed redeemer ? *' I know it is alledged, frequently communica- " ting will leffen our reverence for the facra- tc ment. But the contrary will, I prefume, " abundantly appear, by comparing thofe who c< do now communicate four times, and oftener, " in the year, with thofe who never think of it « above Theological Differtations* 299 " above once. And whatever may be the cafe " with refpecl: to thofe who do not perform re- " ligious duties in a ferious manner at all, yet " as to thofe who do, I believe it will be found, " that the more frequently real Chriftians are " exercifed in them, whether praying, reading, " hearing, meditating, or communicating, they <{ are apt to acquire ftill higher degrees of per- «' feclion, in thefe ufeful exercifes. " As to abridging the number of fermons, &c. " befides the obvious neceflity of this, in order