A CONSIDERATION of the POSITION, "Chrift not the Giver of a new Law."*

HE unlimited position that Christ is

T1

not the giver of a new law, is by no means confonant to the fentiments of the generality of Chriftians; but diametrically oppofite to the Fathers. But notwithstanding those authorities, if it is fcriptural, we must admit it; but if antifcriptural, it must be rejected. Madan, in favour of the recited position, has with great labour intrenched himself so deep in artful reasoning, that he seems to dare any attack, and in order to bring them over to him, he continually attempts to alarm his opponents with the danger of falling in with the Antinomians, or fome fuch heretical fect; and with the fame views he talks of Arianifm, Socinianifm, Mahometanism, and several other ifms

having fprung from the oppofition of his favourite doctrine:-as to the illiberal abufe of those who differ from him, I will call it, as it deferves to be called, ungentlemanlike conduct.

I REVERE the Law of Mofes, and particularly that part of it called the Ten Commandments, delivered with the most awful folemnity immediately by GOD to Mofes, written upon two tables of ftone, expreffive of their duration, and containing the duty of mankind to God and to one another. These being evidently calculated for the good of fociety, are immutable, and ftill really and literally in force; and to fay otherwife is: folly and ignorance, or perhaps fomething worfe: For from the law of the two tables, "till heaven and earth fhall pass away" one jod-the smallest Hebrew letter, or xpa→→→→ born (Heb. p)-little projections diftinguishing fimilar letters, "fhall in no wife pafs:"-then -then if not a letter, or bit of a letter, may pass away from the Ten Commandments till time shall be no more, which omiffions would alter the fenfe, certainly then not

words

66

ver. 14.

But Scripture does

words and fentences. not warrant us to fay the fame of the ritual and judicial parts of the law of Moses: I do not lay any stress on their being delivered, or rather communicated, with lefs folemnity than what has been mentioned; but they are different from the others in their nature and tendency ;-and as they prefigured holy and spiritual things, the law in this point of view may be faid to be " holy, juft, and good," (Rom. vii. 12.) and also fpiritual, However, if we contemplate the law of Mofes, we shall find a great part of it political, rather than religious, as the diftinction between clean and unclean animals, the prevention of intermarriages between the Jews and Heathens, and several other laws relating to marriage, with many others. Yet such a system was not inconfistent with the divine attributes, becaufe fuited to the nius and interefts of the people who were the immediate objects of it. But with refpect to the laws of marriage in particular, thofe in Lev. xviii. having no temporary or local ingredients, ought to be retained according to their true literal import by all Chrif

ge

tian states; because they are calculated for the preservation of decency, and those seve ral duties of relationship, which cannot be violated without caufing the greatest disorder in families and fociety :—for if the son was to marry his mother, to fay nothing of the indecency of the thing, what would become of filial obedience and parental authority, which scripture and reason hold facred; and reasons of a fimilar kind may be given for all the prohibitions of marriage within eertain degrees of confanguinity and affinity, called emphatically the Levitical degrees. But with regard to others, as they have local and temporary ingredients, we ought to adopt only their moral intention; that is, so far as they concern and promote the good and hap piness of mankind, divested of all confiderations about the circumftances of perfons, time, or place.

THE imperfections of fyftems are very rarely to be attributed to the authors of them, but to the then state of mankind :—the prejudices of men must be attended to, and it is the part of wisdom to do it till thofe pre

judices

judices ceafe; and fyftems that do, fo far only as are neceffary to bring about fome future good, can only be called imperfect comparatively and we may apply this to the Jewish fyftem. The Jews refided fo long in Egypt, that they not only learned, but were prejudiced in favour of, many of the cuftoms of that nation, which neceffitated Mofes, in his political and religious inftitutions, to attend to those prejudices :hence we may account for the law of divorce for trivial caufes, and a connivance at the practice of Polygamy ;-both contradictory to the Deity's primary inftitution of marriage. In thofe matters we muft view Mofes as acting by permiffion-not by command→ ment, and for weighty reasons difpenfing with the divine law. That Mofes did do this, in regard to divorce, our Saviour himself has witnessed, and declared the neceffity for fuch a procedure; but as the Jewish government was then theocratical, we are neceffarily led to this conclufion, that the Deity may, and fometimes does, for important ends, difpenfe with his laws. Polygamy had not the fanction of law;-it was only,