Page images
PDF
EPUB

rate.

A householder who had one son and many servants, was about to depart on a long journey to a distant country; he called his son into his presence, and said to him, My son, I am about to be absent for a long time; you know I have a vine

A Restoration of the Ancient Order of Things. I regenerated are therefore devout, or devoted to No. XX. the will of God, and the unregenerate care nothTHERE is no trait in the character of the Sav-ing about it. Now every one that is devout, or iour more clearly marked, more forcibly exhibit- devoted to the will of God, will continually be ed in the memoirs of his life, than his unreserv-inquiring into the will of God. Hence his oraed devotion to the will of his Father and his God. cles will always be their meditation. Every reHow often do we hear him say, "I came not to generated man will therefore be devout, devoted do my own will, but the will of him that sent to the revealed will of God, will seek to know, me." "It is my meat and my drink to do the and understand, and practice it; therefore every will of him that sent me, and to accomplish his regenerated man will be a friend and advocate work." The motto of his life was sung by Da- of the ancient order of things, in the church of vid in these words: "To do thy will, O God, I the Living God, because that order was accorddelight." An unfeigned and unreserved sub-ing to the will of God, and every departure from mission to, a perfect acquiescence in, and a fix-it is according to the will of man. There is not ed unalterable determination to do, the will of a proposition in Euclid susceptible of a clearer the Most High, is the standard of true devotion, or fuller demonstration than this: Every regeneand the rule and measure of true happiness.-rated man must be devoted to the ancient order Whence, let me ask, arose this devotion to the of things in the church of God-Provided it be will of the Father in our Lord and Saviour? We granted as a postulatum, that the ancient order answer, Because he knew the Father. He knew of things was consonant to the will of the Most that God is, and was, and ever shall be love, and High. A mind not devoted to the whole will of he received every expression of his will, wheth- God, revealed in the New Book, is unregeneer pleasing or displeasing to flesh and blood, as He that does not obey God in every thing, an exhibition of God's love. He knew too, that obeys him in nothing. Hearken to this similithere was no love like the love of God, either in tudenature or degree. The love of God is a love emanating from, incorporated with, and measured by, an infinite wisdom, and omniscience.Human affection is often misplaced and misdirected, because of human ignorance and human weakness. The love of some men is much great-yard, and an olive-yard, and an orchard of varier than that of others, because of the strength of their natural endowments. But as the wisdom and knowledge of God are unsearchable, so his love never can be misplaced, misdirected, never can be measured, nor circumscribed. It is perfect in nature, and in nature it is wisdom, power, and goodness combined. In degree, it cannot be conceived of by a finite mind, nor expressed in our imperfect vehicles of thought. It passes all created understanding. It has a height without top, and a depth without bottom. Every oracle of God, is a manifestation of it. As the electric fluid pervades the earth and all bodies upon it, but is invisible to the eye and imperceptible to the touch; but when drawn to a focus in a cloud by its law of attraction, and when it is discharged to another body which requires more of it than the point from which it emanated, it assumes a new form, and a new name, and becomes visible to the eye, and its voice is heard. Every expression of the will of God, every commandment of God, is only drawing to a certain point, and giving form and efficacy to his love. It then becomes visible-it is then audible-We see it we hear it-we feel it.

The very term devotion has respect to the will of another. A devoted or devout man is a man who has respect to the will of God. When a person is given up to the will of any person, or to his own will, he is devoted to that person or to himself. But as the term devout is used in religion, we may say that every man is more or less devout, according to his regard to the will of God expressed in his holy oracles. The Saviour was perfectly so, and he is and ever shall be, the standard of perfect devotion. Not an item of the will of God found in the volume of the old book written concerning him, that he did not do, or submit to; not a single commandment did he receive in person from his Father which he did not perfectly acquiesce in, and obey. He was then perfectly devout.

Now, in proportion as men are regenerated, they are like him. Faith always purifies the heart. A pure, is an unmixed heart, that is, a heart singly fixed upon the will of God. The

ous kinds of fruit. These I have cultivated with great care, and have kept my servants employed in fencing, and in cultivating each of them with equal labor and care. I now give them and my servants into your care and management until my return, and I now command you to have each of them fenced, and pruned, and cultivated as you have seen me do, and at my return I will reward you for your fidelity. He departed. His son calls all the servants together, and having a predilection to the grape above every other fruit, he assembles them all in the vineyard. He improves the fences, he erects his wine vat, and bestows great labor and attention on the pruning and cultivating the vines. They bring forth abundantly; but his attention and the labor of the servants is so much engrossed in the vineyard, that the oliveyard and orchard are forgotten and neglected. In process of time his father returns. He finds his vineyard well enclosed, highly cultivated, and richly laden with the choicest grapes. But on visiting his orchard and oliveyard, he finds the enclosures broken down, the trees undressed and browsed upon by all the beasts of the field. He calls his son. He hangs his head in his presence. His father asks, Why is it, my son, that my oliveyard and orchard are so neglected, and destroyed, while my vineyard flourishes, and is laden with fruit? Father, said he, I have always thought the grape was the most delicious of all fruit, the most salutary, as it cheered the heart of God and man, and therefore the most worthy of constant care and cultivation-I therefore bestowed all my attention upon it. His father rejoined, Unfaithful child, it was not my pleasure, my mind, nor my will, then which guided you; but your own inclination. Had you preferred any thing else to the vineyard, for the same reason that you neglected my orchard and my oliveyard, you would have neglected it. I thank you not for the cultivation of the vine, because, in doing this, you consulted not my pleasure, but your own. Undutiful son, depart from my presence-I will disinherit you, and give my possessions to a stranger.

So it is with every one who is zealous for keep

ing up one institution of the King of kings, while he is regardless of the others.

the term "Word" in this passage, though he is in others; yet this is no direct proof that he is implicated in the above one. Observe again, John says, verse 6th, “This is he that came by water." When did Jesus come by water, if notat his baptism? Yes, at that very juncture said record or testimony was completed in heaven, while Jesus, the object, was on the earth-on the river side. Now if Jesus is the Word, then the passage should read thus: For there are two that bear record in heaven, and one on the earth, or river side. In the 9th verse, he says, "For this is the witness of God which he has testified of his Son." 1 would ask, With what degree of propriety do men speak, when they say, God has testified this witness of his Son, and add, at the same time, that the Son is a testifier in the case himself? I speak as to wise men. Judge you what I say. Was the business of the Saviour into the world to bear witness to himself, or to the truth? John xviii. 37. Hear his own words: "If I bear witness of myself, my

Some Baptists are extremely devoted to immersion. They have read all the baptisms on record in the New Testament, and beginning at the Jordan they end at the city of Philippi, in the bath in the Roman prison. The ancient mode and nothing else will please their taste. Away with your sprinkling and pouring, and babyism! The authority of the Great King is described in glowing colors. The importance of implicit obedience is extolled, and the great utility of keeping his commands is set forth in language which cannot be mistaken. But when the ancient mode of observing the Lord's day or of breaking bread is called up to their attention, they fall asleep. The authority of the Great King will scarcely make them raise their heads or open their eyes. Implicit obedience now has no charms, and the utility of keeping his commands has no attractions for them. Such Baptists are not regenerated, that is, they are not devout-not devoted to the will of God. They seek to please them-witness is not true." John v. 31. And again, selves. Let such compare themselves with the son of the householder in the preceding parable. They have got a Baptist conscience, and not the conscience of the regenerate. A Baptist conscience hears the voice of God and regards his authority only where there is much water. But a regenerated mind and a christian conscience, hears the voice of God and regards his authority as much on every Lord's day, or at the Lord's table, as on the monthly meeting, as at Enon or in the desert of Gaza. Many, we fear, think they are pleasing and serving God, while they are pleasing and serving themselves. They think they are devout, but they are devoted to their own will. So is every one who acknowledges any thing to be the will of God, and yet refuses to do it.

Ah! remember, my friends, that all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man, rabbinical, clerical, regal, is as the flower of the grass: the grass withers, and the flower falls down, but he that does the will of God abides forever.Ye Doctors of Divinity, who are doting about questions, and fighting about straws; ye Editors of religious journals, who are surfeiting the religious mind with your fulsome panegyrics upon those who second your views, and directing the public mind to objects lighter than vanity-remember that the will of Jehovah will stand forever, and that when "gems and monuments and crowns are mouldered down to dust," he that does the will of God shall flourish in immortal youth. Go to work, then, and use your influence to restore the ancient order of things. EDITOR.

Extract of a letter from a gentleman in Sparta,
West Tennessee, to the editor of the Christian
Baptist.

"UPON the supposition that 1 John v. 7. is genuine, I make the following remarks. Observe, John does not speak of this subject as being unknown previous to his writing this epistle; but rather offers it as a narration of things attendant on the life and baptism of the Saviour. That this epistle is a narration of past events, appears from the first chapter and first verse of this epistle. This, I presume, none will deny. "For there are three that bear record in heaven," &c. I cannot believe that this record or testimony had no object, neither that Jesus was the object, and at the same time a witness in the case himself. Believing him to be the object of said record or testimony, but not a witness in the case, I therefore conclude that he is not implicated by

in the 10th verse he says, "Because he believes not the record that God gave of his Son."Here the same record is said to be given by God himself. Now admitting that the Son bears a part of this record, can we speak the language of Canaan with reason, and say, This is the record God gave of his Son? From these and many other considerations of a similar nature, I am led to believe that the Son is not implicated by the term "Word" in this verse. Now you would ask me, What composed said record? To which I will answer in the following manner. Here let me observe, that this record is composed of three manners of attesting the same truth, viz. that Christ is the Son of God:

First manner-The Father, by Isaiah xi. 2. "And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him," &c. From this it is plain that the people were to see the Spirit rest upon him; and sure enough it was seen, (Mark i. 10.) Observe the term upon. Isaiah xlii. 1. "I have put my Spirit upon him, and he shall bring forth judgment to the gentiles." Here is another scripture that in my opinion, has reference to the descent of the Holy Spirit on Christ at his baptism. John i. 33. "And I knew him not, but he (the Father) that sent me to baptize with water, said to me, Úpon whom you shall see the Spirit descending and remaining on him," &c. Through these scriptures, or in this manner, the Father bore record of his Son.

Second manner-The Holy Spirit descended upon Christ when he came up out of the water; or, in the language of verse first, "this is he that came by water." "And John saw and bare record that this is the Son of God." John i. 34.

Third manner-Matt. iii. 17. "And lo! a voice (the Word) from heaven saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Thus we see these three are one as to their origin and design, being given by one being, who by these three manners of attestation, designed to prove the heavenly, the heart-reviving and the soul-saving truth that Jesus Christ is his well beloved Son."

DEAR BROTHER-I CAN neither admit the genuineness of the reading of 1st John, v. 7. nor your interpretation thereof, if genuine. The true reading, in my judgment, is the following, verse 6: "This is he who came (or was coming or was to come) by water and blood, Jesus the Christ; not by the water only, but by the water and the blood, and it is the Spirit which attested this, because the Spirit is the truth. Farther,

EDITOR

there are three that testify this-the Spirit, and | Farther than this your friend and brother cannot the Water, and the Blood-and these three are at present go. one," or to one amount. Thus I literally translate the Greek text of Griesbach, which reading is moreover approved and confirmed by Michaelis, and other great critics and collators of ancient MSS.

No. 2.]

SEPTEMBER 3, 1827.

Deism and the Social System.-No. IV. PERHAPS I should again apologize for the sinThat the common reading, if genuine, makes gular title of these essays. It would import that nothing in favor of the Trinitarians is admitted an inseparable alliance existed or was formed by both Calvin, Beza, Macknight, &c. &c. That between scepticism and a system of social coit is not genuine was admitted at the era of the operation. There is no such necessary connexReformation by Luther, Zuinglius, Bullinger and ion. There was, and there is, scepticism withErasmus, and by many eminent critics since that out a co-operative system; and there is a co-optime. That it is wanting in all the ancient man-erative system without deism. uscripts, save one, and that of doubtful authority, I receive a German paper, edited by Henry is generally admitted; and that it is not found in Kurtz, a teacher of christianity, in Canton, Ohio, any of the very ancient versions is indisputable, denominated the "Messenger of Concord," desuch as the old Syraic, the Coptic, Arabic, and voted to primitive christianity; in which some Ethiopic. That it is not quoted by any of the extracts from this work are translated into the primitive fathers, and scarcely referred to before German language. The writer is an admirer the era of the Council of Nice, is also admitted. and advocate of the ancient order of things and It was by Robert Stephens introduced into the of a social or co-operative system. An infant common Greek text from some of the most an-association of some pious and intelligent Gercient of the Vatican Greek Testaments, from mans already exists, whose constitution contemwhich the Spanish theologians formed the Com-plates a community perfectly social, and devoplutensian edition of the Greek Testament, and which Pope Leo X. gave them. Mill, in his note on the common reading, lays considerable stress upon its having been quoted by Tertullian and Cyprian before the middle of the third century; but the objections against these quotations render them of very doubtful authority; and it is most worthy of note that in the fierce controversies about the Trinity immediately subsequent to the Nicene Council and Creed, it is not once quoted by any writer, which shows it not to have been in the copies then generally read.

As in the judgment of Calvin, Beza, and the most learned Trinitarians, it makes nothing in favor of three persons in one God: and as neither the adoption of it as genuine, nor the rejection of it as spurious, favors the conceits of the Arians; neither sect should contend about it beyond the evidence which antiquity and the scope of the passage furnishes.

ted to the religion of the first congregation in Jerusalem. As far as I understand the genius and spirit of their system of co-operation and their views of christianity, I can cheerfully bid them God speed. But not so our friends at New Harmony. Their system of scepticism must inevitably render their co-operative system a system of disorder-a co-operation whose fate was long since portrayed in the plains of Shinar. Their system has been, now is, and ever shall be, the "Discordia semina rerum non bene junctarum congestaque eodem."-"The discordant seeds of things not fitly joined together and fitted together in the same place." Principles at war with reason, revelation, and a permanent co-operation, are strewed over the pages of their "Gazette," and the "mental independence" which is exhibited deifies both mind and matter, and annihilates both the idea of a creator, and of a moral governor of the world. But to return to our subject.

Since writing our last, the editor of the "New Harmony Gazette" has given in his paper of the 11th July, a few extracts from our No. 2. on this subject, with an invitation to some of his correspondents to come forward and maintain their cause. There is but one sentiment in the remarks of the editor which demands any notice from me. After commending my liberality, he

adds

The translation I have above given of Griesbach is in the spirit and scope of the context; and as I understand the passage, it imports that Jesus was proved to be the Messiah or the Christ, supereminently at his baptism and death. He was, according to ancient type and prophecy, to come by water and blood-and according to these he did come fully attested at his baptism and death. Now there are three evidences of this truth that Jesus is the Christ, and that all who believe in him have eternal life. These “But though he would free us from punishthree concur in one and the same thing. These ment here, he would, we fear, be pleased to see are the spirit, not the Holy Spirit particularly, us in another world suffering those pains and but the doctrine which Jesus taught. Thus tortures which our scepticism justly merits from John defines it in the passage itself: "The spirit a merciful but just Creator. Such at least is the is THE TRUTH." The article is overlooked in the opinion [not the good pleasure then] of most common version. The truth, then, or the spirit, christians. This is one of those erroneous ideas or the doctrine which Jesus taught, proves his which are the great stumbling block in almost mission and his claims. The water, or his bap- every system of religion. Merit and demerit is tism, and the baptism of the first christians, attached to a belief and disbelief in certain dogwhich was generally accompanied by some spir- mas or doctrines, an idea which we know not itual gift, is another proof of the same. His how to reconcile, with the consciousness which death inseparably connected with his resurrec-we, in common with all other individuals of tion, consummates the whole, and the ordinance that commemorates it is a standing monument of his mission. So that these three, the doctrine, the baptism, and the death of Jesus, all attested sceptical friends, is one of their own creation, or This "stumbling block" in the way of our and accompanied by the most signal demonstra- one in which the bible is not concerned. How tions of the Holy Spirit, constitute a summary far metaphysical systems may have created it, view of the infallible evidence of the Messiah- I stop not to inquire. But I hesitate not to call ship of Jesus, and of the truth of God's promise this a palpable error, viz. that we have a conof eternal life to all who believe in and obey him.sciousness that our will has no power nor con

or control over our belief."
our species, possess, that our will has no power

might have been endowed with a higher degree of instinctive knowledge. But again, if the sun had been made to afford greater light, the human eye would have been rendered useless, or have been made differently. If the heat which we attribute to the sun had been greatly aug

trol over our belief. This assertion, that our will has no control nor power over our belief, is found in substance or in form in almost every number of the "New Harmony Gazette," and is one of the most palpable errors in all that they say against christianity. The experience of every man who can think at all upon what pass-mented, our bodies could not have endured it. es in his own mind, is, and must be, directly to the contrary of this assertion. It is, indeed, almost a proverb, "that what men wish or will to believe, they do believe; and what they do not like or will to believe, they disbelieve." Stop, Mr. Editor, and examine yourself here. This assertion I know is a capital and an essential dogma of yours. I see it is a part of "the chain or filling" in every piece you weave against the bible. I know, too, the speciosity which it has; for there are many instances in which it would seem the will had no power over our belief; and I do know there are many cases where and when we cannot help believing and disbelieving when our will is on the other side. But still it is a truth capable of the fullest demonstration that your assertion is false; or, in other words, that the will has an immense control over our belief. You see, then, we are at issue here. And as this is your main fort and citadel, do examine its bulwarks and towers. They are most certainly built upon the sand. You assert that the will has no power over our belief. I assert that it has an immense power over it. My adage is, What men will to believe, they most generally, if not universally, believe. I assert that the understanding is not independent of the will, nor the will of the understanding. But I only call this subject up to your reflection at present. The design of my present paper is to offer some thoughts upon the nature of the evidence of christianity.

The evidence of christianity, or the proof that it is of divine origin and authority, are usually classified under two heads-the Internal and the External. The internal are those which appear in the volume itself, or the proofs which the religion itself, objectively considered, presents to the mind of a reasoner or student. The external are those attestations which accompanied the promulgation of the religion, and those arguments derived from, not the nature of the religion itself, but from the accompaniments of it; these are usually denominated the miracles and the prophecies. To those who were the cotemporarics of the promulgation of this religion, the external evidences first arrested their attention, and were, in a certain sense, to them the stronger evidences; but to us who have the whole on record, both the religion itself and the miracles and prophecies, the internal are the stronger, and first arrest our attention. It is, perhaps, improper to separate them, for the one is not without the other, either in the design or execution of this stupendous scheme, nor in the import of it. I am not about to adopt this trite method, nor to occupy the attention of my readers in the investigation of either distinctively; but in the mean time, would offer a few reflections upon the adjustment of the evidences to the condition of mankind in general.

I will, without hesitation, admit that the evidences of the truth of christianity might have been easily augmented if it had pleased the founder of it, or had it been compatible with the whole plan of things. From analogy I have reasoned thus: The sun might have been made to have produced a thousand times more light and heat. Animals necessary to our comfort might have been greatly multiplied, or those given us

If domestic animals had been augmented, their support would have been more oppressive, or if those made for our convenience had been endued with more instinct or more extensive knowledge, they would not have served us at all, but have become our masters. And if the evidences of christianity had been augmented, it would not have been adapted to the condition of man. The adjustment of light to the eye and of the eye to light; of heat to animals and of animals to heat; of instinct to brutes, and of brutes to our service, is all graduated upon a divine scale; or, in other words, is perfectly adapted means to end, and end to means. Precisely so the evidences of the christian religion to the present condition of men, and of the religion itself to man. The christian religion is made for man, and absolutely and indispensably necessary to his com fort, as food is to the body. And the evidences of this religion taken together are as precisely adapted to the condition of man in this stage of his existence, as light is to the human eye, or sound to the human ear. Amongst the thousand ways in which the evidences of the christian religion might have been, and might now be augmented, I will mention but two or three. For instance, God might have spoken aloud to the Jews and Romans in their own language, in such a way as could not be misunderstood, and have attested the pretensions and claims of his Son. The Son himself might have, by the same power, given more general and conspicuous proofs of his mission. He might have gone to Rome, as to Jerusalem, and summoned all the heads of departments, magistrates, legislators, and priests, and given such proofs of his person and mission as would have revolutionized Rome and the world in a few days. At this time also, God might speak in all the languages of the world in the same instant of time, and inform all nations, viva voce, that the contents of the New Testament were worthy of universal acceptation. Or he might cause all the believers to escape all calamities in this first life, and live ten times as long as the infidels; he might cause them to pass off the stage in a deep sleep, as when Eve was made out of the side of Adam, and thus have exempted them from all pain. He might have made them prosperous and happy every way. But what imagination can conceive, what tongue express how many, and how signal proofs of the divine anthority of the scriptures of truth, he might have given! So that I make it an argument of no little momentum in giving a reason of the hope that is in me, that God could have made the evidence omnipotent, but he has not done it, and for reasons the wisest that could be conceived of.

I write not now merely for the benefit of sceptics, but for Christians schooled in a false philosophy. Why, tell me, ye Christians, who are naturally and morally, or spiritually dead as a stone, why was there any adjustment of the evidences of christianity, or rather why had it any evidence at all but in the hearts of men? Why was not the evidence greater or less than it is? Your systems will not enable you to answer this question I am sure. Ask your Doctors, and they cannot tell you. Ask your systems, and they have forgotten it. Yet it is a fact that the ev

dences are adjusted upon a certain scale and amount to a certain maximum beyond which they do not go.*

Had they gone farther (I will blab out the secret,) all excellency in faith would have been destroyed. Had they fallen short one degree every mouth could not have been stopped. While small proportion of the evidence is sufficient for some, it is all necessary for others; and those who do not believe upon the whole of it, and have one objection remaining when the whole is heard and examined, that which would remove this one objection would destroy every virtue and excellency properly belonging to faith. Faith built upon evidence greater than the whole amount divinely vouchsafed, would have nothing moral about it; it would be as unavoidable as the motions of a mill wheel under a powerful head of water, or as the waving of the tops of pines beneath a whirlwind.

I must break off in the midst of my illustration, and close my present essay, when I tell the New Harmony people that the faith which they talk of, over which "the will has no power," requires that species of evidence which is incompatible with all moral virtue and goodness, and which would make belief like the fall of one of those volcanic stones which a few months since shivered a tree a few miles from Nashville, Ten

nessee.

To such christians as are staggered at the above reasoning, I would just mention that the Saviour resolved the infidelity of his hearers on many occasions, entirely to the will-"You will not come to me," and "You would not."

EDITOR.

A FARMER Once had a horse, which his son, a lad of ten years old, could ride with pleasure and safety. But no fence could keep this horse out of his master's corn field. The consequence was, he was confined to the stable and secluded from good pasture. The lad said to his father one day when riding out, 'Father, what a pity it is that this horse has not a little more wisdomhow much better he might live in the pasture than in the stable, if only he could learn from his first long confinement to avoid going into the cornfield. If he had only a little more sense how much better it would be for him and for us.' Stop, my son, replied his father-if he had a little more sense, just as much as you now wish him to have, he would not let you nor me ride him at all. Those who never think upon the adjustment of things to their respective ends and uses, will find an admonition here. EDITOR.

Remarks on Tassey's Vindication. To the Editor of the Christian Baptist. SIR-IN the close of extracts from Mr. Tassey's vindication, &c. the last of which appeared in your No. of May 7th, I intimated an intention,

If sinners be as spiritually dead as a stone, and if their conversion be the effect of omnipotent power, or of mere physical energy of God's spirit; then not only is any adjustment of evidence unnecessary, but all evidence of the truth of the scriptures is quite unnecessary. To afford evidence of any kind, or to augment it to any degree, would be as unmeaning or as superfluous as to create one, two, or three suns to enable those to see who are born blind. On the scheme that men are all born blind, and therefore can

not see any light, star light, moon light, or sun light, it would evince a want of wisdom in the Creator to have created any light at all, or to have tempered it to any degree whatever. What would we think of the skill of a physician who professed to restore the blind to sight, and who employed himself in making candles of different magnitudes, or of lighting lamps of certain capacities! Asredly the rational would lose all confidence in his pre

ons,

with your permission, of adverting to a few faults which I was grieved to find in that otherwise excellent performance.

Though the author appears quite alive to a sense of the pernicious influence of the common prejudices of education, of system, of interest, &c. and speaks as loudly and as pointedly against them, as almost any I have met with, yet, strange to tell, he seems as completely under the influence of those pernicious evils, against which he declaims and admonishes with so just a vehemence, as are some of those, he so justly condemns. It is under this impression I feel induced to animadvert upon a performance which, in other respects, I so highly esteem-and that both for the sake of the author, and of the public into whose hands these animadversions may chance to come. But, before I proceed, permit me to correct a mistake which I made in relation to the author's not having formally cited the Westminster Confession of Faith, upon the powers of synods and councils, which he has precisely done, p. 233. This was an oversight.

Investigating the various striking coincidences between Moses the type, and Christ the antitype, from Acts iii. 22. 23. it is stated p. 21. that "Moses was the introducer of a new dispensation of religion; one which was different and distinct, in its leading features, from any that had preceded; and which was added, as an appendage, to the patriarchal dispensation, "because of transgression, until the seed should come to whom the promise was made." Moses was king in Jeshurun. "Our Lord, in this respect, most strikingly resembled his predecessor. He is the author and introducer of a new dispensation of religion, of which he is himself the sum and substance. He came to put an end to the carnal institutions, which consisted in meats, drinks, and divers washings; to these sacrifices, which could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; and to abrogate and forever abolish all the laws which pertained to the worldly sanctuary, and all the privileges that belonged to the Jews as a distinguished and separated people. He came, as the Sun of Righteousness, to enlighten a dark and benighted world, to teach and establish the worship of the true God, in its more spiritual and glorious form.-He came, also, to give laws and regulations to his people, adapted to the various circumstances in which they, as his followers, would feel themselves placed in this present world." So far the coincidence and contrast is clear, striking, and intelligible; and the natural and necessary consequences certain, easy, and obvious. We must then, as christians, look simply and solely to Jesus Christ for the given laws and regulations to his people, adapwhole of our religion; for he, as our king, has ted, &c. Christ is King in Zion.

Not so fast, for, says Mr. T. "We are not to consider the religion which the Saviour taught, as a distinct and different religion from that which was propagated by Moses. They are in substance and design the same, and are not in any measure to be considered as opposed to each other.

"Although, therefore, our Lord came to set aside that covenant or dispensation of religion, which had waxed old, and was ready to vanish away; yet it was not to abolish the religion itself; for a sinner was justified by faith and saved then, just as he is now: and though he introduced a new covenant or dispensation of religion, excelling, in glory, that which preceded it, yet

« PreviousContinue »