"tice of those who call evil good, and good evil, and put "bitter for fweet, and fweet for bitter?" But whatever variance there might feem to be between this doctrine and that of the holy fcriptures, it was neceffary that the learned writer fhould certify his affinity to the divines of Poland, and efpecially to their patriarch Socinus, who fpeaks in this manner : "We conclude therefore, that Adam even before "he had tranfgreffed the commandment of God, was not "truly righteous, fince he was not infallible; and that the "reafon why he had not finned, was because he had not "occafion of doing fo: And certainly, one cannot affirm "that he was righteous, fince it cannot be proved that he "would have abftained from fin, if he had the opportunity "The very fame doctrine our author maintains : "It never was the intention of Almighty God to fave (6 men by what is called a covenant of works, without "grace; and for this plain reason, because the thing is impracticable for fuch creatures as we are. By it our first parents themselves were not faved." Here he evidently fuppofes, that Adam before he fell was in the fame fitu ation with us, as we come into the world. This doctrine he endeavours to fupport in a very ftrange manner, by adducing one of the cleareft paffages against his plan, to be found in fcripture:" If righteoufnefs come by the law, "then Chrift is dead in vain t." He has, indeed, a twofold defign in bringing forward this text. His intention evidently is, in the first place, to thow, that all the fons of Adam are equally able with himfelf to obey God's law, and that he never put it in man's power to fave himself by perfect obedience: as if Paul's fcope in these words had been to fhow, that it was impoffible for man in any fituation to attain righteoufnefs by his own doings. He is, indeed, so far right in faying that "it was never God's intention to "fave man by a covenant of works :" for, if this had been his intention, it could not have failed. It is also true, that, "the thing is impracticable for fuch creatures as we are. But this does not prove, that it was impracticable for one "made after the image of God, in his likeneis,-created "in knowledge, righteoufnefs, and the holiness of truth." Although *Soc, prælect. 3. 4. apud Jurieu Tableau de Socinianifme, part 1.1. 1. 29. Concluons donc qu'Adam meme, &c. † P. 251. 1. 6. Gal. ii. 21. Although" our first parents themselves were not faved" by the covenant of works, it was their own fault. The only reason why they were no: faved by it, was because they wilfully destroyed themfelves, and all their pofterity by the breach of it. "The commandment was (once) unto life." It loft its power of giving life, it became weak (only) "through the flesh," or corruption of human nature. For "God made man upright, but he fought out many inven"tions." But But he has clearly another defign in introducing these words, to fhow that "God accepts of repentance and fincere obedience, inftead of finlefs perfection *. Thus, with that uncommon effrontery, of which we fhall have many inftances afterwards, he employs one of the most pointed texts in the whole Bible against the doctrine of merit, as if it were meant folely in his favour. "If, (fays he) we could have attained to eternal happiness by our own perfect obedience to the law of God, there could have been no need of the death or mediation of Chrift." He wishes to reprefent the force of the apostle's conclufion, as ftriking only against an attempt to be juftified by perfect obedience; and to infinuate, of confequence, that the Galatians fought juftification in this way. from the strain of the epiftle it is undeniable, that they did not seek eternal life by perfect obedience, but only joined their own imperfect obedience with the righteoufnels of Chrift. They did not reject the hearing of faith," or of the doctrine of falvation through the blood of Chrift+. They "fought only to be made perfect by the fleth +." The apoftle declares, that however far they were mifled for a time, they were the children of God by faith in Chrift Jefus §." They had not in profeffion renounced Christ, though they joined the observation both of the moral, and of the ceremonial law to his righteoufnefs as neceffary to juftification. Therefore, he ufes it as an argument with them, that, “if they were circumcifed, Chrift would profit them nothing" which would have been of no force with perfons who had altogether renounced Chrift, and who fought eternal life by perfect obedience. Had they pretended this, it would have been to no purpose to tell them, that by *P. 252. head. + Ch. iii. 2. ‡ Ch. iii. 3 by circumcifion they became "debtors to do the whole law *;" for Paul must have known, that this was just what they meant or that they "were fallen from grace +;" or that "a little leaven leavened the whole lump," for they would inftantly have replied with a fneer at the apoftle's filly method of reasoning, that what he fo pompously introduced as his conclufion, was really their first principle. The falfe teachers did not any more than fome in our day, in as many words renounce "the crofs of Chrift." They were only afraid of perfecution for it; and therefore enjoined the obfervation of the ceremonial law, in order to curry favour with the Jews, who generally, as they did with refpect to the Mafter, ftirred up the Gentiles against the disciples §. Now, it is against those who mingled faith and works that the apostle reasons in this manner and his conclufion, even according to our author's doctrine, must be equally valid against them, as if they had pretended to give perfect obedience. For he adds in the paffage already referred to: "The fupreme Lawgiver determined from the beginning to mitigate the rigour of law, to make allow❝ances for human error and imperfection, and to accept "of repentance and fincere obedience, inftead of finlefs "perfection." Now, as he denies that Chrift really obeyed the law, and fatisfied the juftice of God in our stead, he cannot affign any good reason, why God might not have adınitted this kind of obedience, without the intervention of fo inefficient a Redeemer. So that it is juft against him, and fuch judaifing pharifaical teachers, that the apoftle's argument has its full force, nay, hath any force at all, in the two branches of abfurdity supposed. For, "if righteoufnefs come by the law, (then) the grace of God is fruftrate," made void, or rendered of none effect: because falvation must be wholly of grace, or not at all. "If by grace, then "it is no more of works; otherwife grace is no more grace. "But if it be of works, then it is no more grace; otherwise "work is no more work ." It alters the very nature of grace, it excludes it altogether, if works be mingled with it, as in any degree meritorious. "It is no more grace;" for however small the degree may be fuppofed, the very foundation * Ch v. 3. + Ch. v. 4. Ch. v. 9. § Ch. vi 12. dation is altered. "To him that worketh is the reward "reckoned, not of grace, but of debt *." It also follows, that "Chrift, died in vain." For, if God could accept of our repentance and imperfect obedience, then there was no occation for fo "unfpeakable a gift." He might well have "fpared his own Son." Indeed, I rather wonder that the author fhould mention fuch a text at all, than that he fhould endeavour to pervert it. It is aftonishing, that he has difcovered no ancient manufcript of great authority, where it is wanting. For, if he view it in its evident meaning, from the whole ftrain of the epiftle, he muft reckon it an argument every way unworthy of fo wife a man as Paul. For the author himself not only grants the fuppofition, but has not the least objection to the doctrine contained in the conclufion. He believes that Chrifl, not only "died in vain," in regard to the failure of his endea vours, as to many of thefe for whom he died; but that there was no real neceflity for his death at any rate. He is satisfied, that though Chrift had not had any "previous "trial of our infirmities and afflictions, the cafe might have "been the fame that it is as to the final accomplishment of "our hopes. Let us hear him a little further on this head: "It was "the good pleasure of Almighty God, that this death "fhould not be eternal, as the rigour of the law required "it to be, but only temporary t." Here is a denial of the principal part of the curfe of the law. Are we not "by "nature the children of wrath?-The wages of fin is "death, but the gift of God is eternal life." Surely, according to the common meaning of language, the death must be as extenfive as the life to which it is oppofed. But what evidence has the writer for this opinion? Certain we are, it is not deduced from the facred records; for he acknowledges that "the rigour of the law required that this "death fhould be eternal." Now, where is his proof of God's difpenfation with it? Hath he declared it? No; but Socinus has. Perhaps our author may give fome proof in the words that follow;" that mankind fhould be de"livered from it by a resurrection." This is the proof, it would feem, which fatisfies our author that the death incurred by breach of covenant is not eternal,--that there is + P. 240. 1. 11. * Rom. iv. 4. + P. 527. foot. arefurrection. But need we a more direct proof of what he understands by eternal death? Nothing lefs than annihilation. For he here oppofes the refurrection to eternal death as its proper contraft. Is not this the very fame, as if he had faid, that all fhall be annihilated who are not raifed again; or, that none who fhall be raised again, shall be made to fuffer eternal death? Is not this to deny the fcriptural notion of it, as confifting in the separation of the whole man from God, and in the punishment of both soul and body in hell for ever? Is not this to make the body the only proper subject of eternal death, as if the foul could not exist by itself, or were not effentially different from the body? In a word, is it not to deny that there fhall be a "refurrection of the unjuft;" to deny that "fome fhall "rife to everlasting fhame and contempt ?" But, may you fay, perhaps you mistake the author's meaning. Well, by all means let him have a full hearing.- "That mankind "fhould be delivered from it by a refurrection, and reftored to a capacity of enjoying immortal happiness, of which "they fhould in due time be put in the actual poffeffion, if they fought it by fincere repentance." Do not think it a full proof that he means a general refurrection of the unjust as well as of the juft, that he adds: "And reftored to "a capacity of enjoying immortal happinefs:" That is, those only are "delivered by a refurrection," who "are "reftored to this capacity." Nay, there is a conditional claufe added which applies to refurrection as well as to immortal happiness - That mankind thould be delivered "from it by a refurrection-if they fought it by fincere repentance. There are feveral other paffages which favour too much of material doctrine, or in other words, of a denial of the immateriality and conftitutional immortality of the foul. He understands Chrift's "commending his fpirit" of his only giving up his life "into the hands" of his Father; as if it had not been his rational, immortal foul, but his mere animal life which he thus delivered up Again, he fays: "We are not able by any power of ours, to open the pri "fon of the grave, to difengage ourselves from death the wages of fin, and feize on eternal life +." He confiders that death which confifts in the imprisonment of the body in + P. 231. 1. 19. *P. 180. l. 16. |