are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have [absolution and] praise of the same."

This mistake of our translators seems to be countenanced by Gal. v, 28. "Against such [the righteous] there is no law." Just as if the apostle had said εξι νόμος ουδεις, whereas his words are κατα των τοιαύτων 8x 85 vouos, literally, "The law is not against such!" Whence it appears: (1.) That believers are under the law of Christ, not only as a rule of life, but also as a rule of judgment. (2.) That when, they "bear one another's burdens and so fulfil that law," it is "not against them," it does not condemn them. (3.) That as there is no medium between the condemnation and the absolution of the law; the moment the law does not condemn a believer, it acquits him. And (4.) That consequently every penitent, obedient believer is actually justified by the law of Christ, agreeably to Rom. ii, 12, and Matt. xii, 37: for, says the apostle, "the law is not AGAINST such," plainly intimating that it is FOR them.

It had been well for us if some of our divines had been satisfied with insinuating, that we need not keep the commandments to obtain eternal salvation through Jesus Christ: but some of them even endeavour to make us as much afraid of the decalogue, as of a battery of cannon. With such design it is that pious J. Bunyan says, in one of his unguarded moments, "Have a care of these great guns, the ten commandments;" just as if it were as desperate an attempt to look into the law of God, in order to one's salvation, as to look into the mouths of ten loaded pieces of cannon, in order to one's preservation. What liberty is here taken with the Gospel! Christ says, "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments," the obedience of faith being "the narrow way," that through him "leads to life." "No," say some of our Gospel ministers, "sincere obedience is a jack o'lantern: and what you recommend as a way to life, is a tenfold way to death." O ye that fear God, do not so rashly contradict our Lord. Who among you regard yet his sayings? Who stand to their baptismal vow? Who will not only "believe all the articles of the Christian faith," but also "keep God's holy will and commandments, and walk in the same all the days of their life?" Let no Solifidian make you afraid of the commandments. Methinks I see the bleeding "Captain of our salvation" lifting up the standard of the cross, and giving thus the word of command: "Dread not my precepts. If you love me, keep my commandments. Blessed are they,' who keep God's commandments, that they may enter into the city by the gate, and lay hold on eternal life."" If this is the language of inspiration, far from dreading "the ten great guns," love them next to the wounds of Jesus. Stand behind the cross; ply there the heavenly ordnance, and you shall be invincible: yea, one of you shall chase a thousand. It is the command broken in unbelief, and not the command kept in faith, that slays: for that very ordnance which is loaded with a fearful curse, levelled "unto the third or fourth generation of them that hate God," is loaded with mere "mercy to a thousand generations of them that love him and keep his commandments."

Zelotes probably wonders at the legality of the preceding lines, and is ready to exclaim against my "blindness," for not seeing that Moses' moral law, delivered on Mount Sinai, is a mere covenant of works,

diametrically opposed to the covenant of grace. As his opinion is one of the strongest ramparts of Antinomianism, I beg leave to erect a battery against it. If I am so happy as to demolish it, I shall not only be able to recover the decalogue-the "ten great guns," but a considerable part of the Old Testament, such as most of the lessons which our Church has selected out of Deuteronomy and Ezekiel, and which the Solifidians consider as Jewish trumpery, akin to the Arminian heresy; merely because they contain powerful incentives to sincere, evangelical obedience, according to the doctrine of the second Gospel axiom.

I humbly conceive then: (1.) That the moral law delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai was a particular edition of that gracious and holy law which St. James calls "the law of liberty," St. Paul "the law of Christ." (2.) That our Lord solemnly adopted the moral part of the decalogue, in his sermon upon the mount, where he rescued the moral precepts from the false glosses of the scribes; representing those precepts as the evangelical law, according to which we must live, if ever "our righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees;" and by which we must be "justified in the day of judgment," (agreeable to his own doctrine, Matt. xii, 37,) if ever we escape the curse which will fall on the ungodly. And (3.) That although we are not bound to obey the decalogue, as delivered to Moses literally written in stone, (in which St. Paul observes that it is "done away," 2 Cor. iii, 7, 11,) yet we are obliged to obey it, so far as it is a transcript of the moral law, that eternally binds all rational agents, and so far as Christ has made it his own by spiritualizing and enforcing its moral precepts on the mount;-I say its moral precepts, because the fourth commandment, which is rather of the ceremonial than of the moral kind, does not bind us so strictly as the others do. Hence it is that St. Paul says, "Let no man judge you in respect of the Sabbath days," Col. ii, 16, and even finds fault with the Galatians for "observing days," with a Jewish scrupulosity.

That the moral law of Sinai was a peculiar edition of God's evangelical law adapted to the Jewish cominonwealth, and not an edition of the Adamic law of innocence, I prove by the following arguments :

1. Rom. x, 5, St. Paul produces Moses as describing the righteousness which is of the law of Sinai: "That the man who does these things shall live by them." And Rom. viii, 13, he himself describes the righteousness which is of "the law of liberty" thus: "If ye live after the flesh ye shall die; but if ye, through the Spirit, mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live." Now are not those people excessively prejudiced, who deny either that in both these descriptions the promise, shall live, is the same; or that it is suspended on sincere obedience? And therefore is it not evident that St. Paul never blamed the Jews for seeking salvation by an humble obedience to the moral precepts of the Mosaic covenant, in due subordination to faith in the Divine mercy and in the promised Messiah; but only for opposing their opus operatum, their formal, partial, ceremonious, Pharisaic obedience, to that very faith which should have animated all their works?

2. The truth of this observation will appear in a still stronger light, if you consider, that when the evangelical apostle asks, "What says the righteousness of faith?" he answers almost in the very words in which the legal prophet asserts the practicableness of his own law. For St.

Paul writes, “The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart; that is, the word of faith which we preach," Rom. x, 8. And Moses says, Deut. xxx, 11, "The word is very nigh unto thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it:" which undoubtedly implies a believing of that word, in order to the doing of it; agreeably to the doctrine of our Church, which asks, in her catechism, "What dost thou learn in the commandments?" and answers, "I learn my duty toward God, &c, which is to believe in him," &c. Thus we see, that as the Mosaic law was not without Gospel and faith, so the Christian Gospel is not without law and obedience; and consequently that those divines who represent Moses as promiscuously cursing, and Christ as indiscriminately blessing all the people under their respective dispensations, are greatly mistaken.

3. Whatever liberty the apostle takes with the superannuated cere. monies of the Jews, which he sometimes calls "carnal ordinances,” and sometimes "beggarly elements," it is remarkable that he never speaks disrespectfully of the moral law, and that he exactly treads in the steps of Moses' evangelical legality: for if Moses comes down from Mount Sinai, saying, Honour thy father and mother," &c, St. Paul writes from Mount Sion, "Honour thy father and mother, (which is the first commandment of the second table with promise,) that it may be well with thee," Ephesians vi, 2, 3. As for Christ, we have already seen, that when he informs us how well it will be with us if we keep his commandments, he says, “This do, and thou shalt live;” i. e. thou shalt “inherit eternal life" in glory.

4. As Christ freely conversed with Moses on the mount, so St. Paul is freely conversant with Moses' legality in his most evangelical epistles, Take another instance of it. “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," says the Jewish lawgiver, Lev, xix, 28. “Love one another,” says the Christian apostle, “for he that loveth another hath fulfiled the law, for, &c, love is the fulfilling of the law," Rom. xmi, 8, 10. that he spoke this of the moral law of Sinai, as adopted by Christ, is evident from his quoting in the 9th verse the very words of that law, “Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not covet, and—any other conamandment,” &c.

And

5. St. James forms a threefold cord, with Moses and St. Paul, to draw us out of the ditch of Antinomianism, into which pious divines have inadvertently led us. "If you fulfil the royal law," says he, "ye do well; but if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, &c. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty,” James u, 8, 9, 13. * Tre," says Zelotes; but that law of liberty is the free Gospel preached by Dr. Crisp," Not so: for St. James immediately produces part of that very law of Eberty, by which fallen believ. ers, that have showed no merey, will have judgment without mercy:" and he does it in the very words of Moses and St. Paril, * Do not commit adultery, do not kill,” James ii, 11. Any one who can set aside the testimony which those apostles bear in favour of the moral law of Moses, may, by the same art, press the most glaring truths of the Bible into the service of any new fangled dotages.

6. Because the Mosaic dispensation, considered with respect to its

superannuated types and ceremonies, is an old covenant with regard to the Christian dispensation, Zelotes rashly concludes that Moses' moral law is the covenant of unsprinkled works, and of perfect innocence, which God made with Adam in paradise. Hence he constantly opposes the ten commandments of God to the Gospel of Christ, although he has no more ground for doing it, than for constantly opposing Rom. ii, to Rom. viii; Gal. vi, to Gal. ii; and Matt. xxv, to John x. Setting therefore aside the ceremonial and civil laws of Moses, the difference between him and St. Paul consists principally in two particulars: (1.) The books of Moses are chiefly historical; and the epistles of St. Paul chiefly doctrinal. (2.) The great prophet chiefly insists upon obedience, the fruit of faith; and the great apostle chiefly insists upon faith, the root of obedience. Hence it appears, that those eminent servants of God cannot be opposed to each other with any more propriety, than Mr. B. has opposed a Jewish if to a Christian if.

7. The Sinai covenant does not then differ from the Christian dispensation essentially, as darkness and light, but only in degree, as the morning light and the blaze of noon. Judaism deals in types and veiled truths; Christianity in antitypes and naked truths. Judaism sets forth the second Gospel axiom, without destroying the first; and Christianity holds out the first, without obscuring the second. The Jews waited for the first coming of Christ "to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself:" and the Christians look for his "appearing a second time without sin," i. e. without that humiliation and those sufferings which constituted him "a sacrifice for sin." I see, therefore, no more reason to believe that Mount Sinai flames only with Divine wrath, than to think that Mount Sion burns only with Divine love; for if a beast was to be thrust through with a dart for rushing upon Mount Sinai; Ananias and Sapphira were thrust through with a word for rushing upon Mount Sion. And if I read that Moses himself" trembled exceedingly" at the Divine vengeance displayed in Arabia, I read also that "great fear came upon all the Church," on account of the judgment inflicted upon the first backsliders in the good land of Canaan. In a word, as Christ is "the Lion of the tribe of Judah,” as well as "the Lamb of God;" so Moses was "the meekest man úpon earth," as well as the severest of all the prophets.

8. To prove that the decalogue is a Gospel "law of liberty," and not the Adamic law of innocence, one would think it is enough to observe that the law of innocence was given without a mediator, whereas the law of Sinai was given by one. For St. Paul informs us, that "it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator," Moses, a mighty intercessor, and a most illustrious type of Christ, to whom he pointed the Israelites. This makes the apostle propose a question, which contains the knot of the difficulty raised by the Antinomians: "Is the law then against the promises of God?" Is the Sinai covenant against the Gos pel of Christ? And he answers it by crying out, "God forbid!" Nay, as a "school master" it "brings us to Christ" that we may be "justified by faith" as sinners; and afterward it makes us keep close to him for power to obey it, that we may be justified by works as believers; "for," says he in another place, "the doers of the law, [and none but they,] shall be justified, &c, in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my Gospel." A plain proof this, that

the moral law, with all its sanctions and precepts, is a capital part of the Christian, as well as of the Jewish dispensation.

9. Again: the Adamic moral law was given without a sacrificing priest: but not so the Mosaic moral law. For while Moses was ready to act his part as an interceding prophet; Aaron was ready to second him by offering up typical incense and propitiatory sacrifices; and God graciously invested him with power to give a sacerdotal blessing to penitent transgressors; appointing him the representative of Christ, whom St. Paul calls "the high priest of our dispensation."

Once more: the preface of the decalogue is altogether evangelical; and the second commandment speaks of "punishing" only "unto the third generation," while it mentions "showing mercy unto a thousand generations," which, if I mistake not, intimates that the decalogue breathes mercy as well as justice; and therefore that it is an edition of Christ's evangelical, and not of Adam's anti-evangelical law.

These observations make me wonder that pious divines should set aside the moral part of Moses' law as being the impracticable law of innocence. But when I reflect that Aaron himself helped to set up the golden calf, and that Moses, in a fit of intemperate zeal for God, dashed the material tables of his own law to pieces, I no more wonder that pious Solifidians should help the practical Antinomians to set up their great Diana; and that warm men should break the Almighty's laws to the diminutive, insignificant pieces which they are pleased to call "rules of life."

And let nobody say that these arguments are only "novel chimeras ;" for the most judicious Calvinists have been of this sentiment. Flavel, after mentioning several, such as Bolton, Charnock, and Burgess, adds, "Mr. Greenhill on Ezek. xvi, gives us demonstration from that context, that since it (the Mosaic law) was a marriage covenant, as it appears to be, verse 8, it cannot possibly be a distinct covenant from the covenant of grace. The incomparable Turretine" (one of Calvin's most famous successors at Geneva) "learnedly and judiciously states this controversy, and both positively asserts, and by many arguments fully proves, that the Sinai law cannot be a pure covenant of works, or a covenant specifically distinct from the covenant of grace." (See Flavel's Works, folio edi. tion p. 423.)

The same candid author helps me to some of the following supernumerary arguments: (1.) Nothing can be more unreasonable than to suppose that God brought his chosen people out of the Egyptian bondage, to put them under the more intolerable bondage of the law of innocence. (2.) If God had done this, instead of bettering their condition, he would have made it worse: nay, he would have brought them from the blessing to the curse: for in Egypt they were nationally under the covenant made with Abraham: a gracious covenant this, into which they were all admitted by the sacrament of circumcision. Nor could they be put under the Adamic covenant of works, without being first cut off from the covenant of grace made with Adam after the fall, renewed with all mankind in Noah, and peculiarly confirmed to the Jews in their ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; it being evident that no man can be at the same time under two covenants absolutely different. Nay, (3.) If the law given to the Israelites upon Mount Sinai was not an