« AnteriorContinua »
"3. The businesse of the last Classe was deferred, because much thereof did relate to Mr. Warden, and hee unexpectedly called away.
"THE CLASSE did not meete in the month of September, 1651."
No reason is assigned for this interruption.
Rae, a work note now much known but marked by information and integrity.
Da 498 si MTP? JAR
"We have it from several good hands, that upon t this day's march, (Nov. 12, 1715,) Mr. Wood and Mr. Walker, two Dissenting Ministers in Lancashire, came to General Wills, while he was yet some few miles from Preston, and told him they had a considerable party of men well armed for his Majesty's service, and that they were ready to take any part his Excellency was pleased to assign them. As soon as he knew who they were, and had seen their men, he told them that after he was come to Preston he would assign them a post. Accordingly, when he arrived there he made the necessary disposition for an attack, and sent back to tell them to keep the bridge of Ribble, to prevent the Rebels escaping that way, or their friends coming from that side to join them. This they did with so much courage and bravery, that the General regretted afterwards that he had not assigned them a better post. However, we are told that after the General went up to London, he was pleased to notify their good conduct on that occasion to Government, who generously settled upon them 100 per
Islington, November 4, 1823. * USING upon this day being the anniversary of the landing of William at Torbay, 1688, by which the rights and liberties of the British subject were secured, I could not help feeling grateful that the family of the Stuarts were never suffered to return for the destruction of them. Neither the Rebellion of 1715 nor of 1745 succeeded. In the suppression of these memorable insurrections, our Dissenting forefathers took an active part, and the Brunswick family were sensible of their merits on these occasions. Job Orton, in his Life of Doddridge, mentions this good man going about and enlisting young men out of his congregation, in the year 1745. But the following circumstance has recently come to my knowledge; it is a note, found in the History of the Rebellion, 1715, by the Rev. Peter
It is well known that the Rebels were surrounded in Preston, and taken so effectually, that it put a speedy end to the insurrection. Thus the Protestant Dissenters, though not the blind and indiscriminate admirers of all the measures of Government, have within them the seeds of genuine loyalty. This numerous and respectable body of religionists can, on a proper emergency, rush forth, and, buckling on their armour, aid the cause as well as swell the triumphs of civil and religious liberty. The patriotism of these two Dissenting Ministers entitles them to a niche in the temple of fame; their deeds should occupy a page in the annals of their country. Indeed, their well-directed ardour in so good a cause, when thousands of Catholics, and even Churchmen, stood aloof, ought, with every due encomium, to descend to posterity.
Pray, Mr. Editor, can any of your Lancashire correspondents give any information of Messieurs Wood and
logue. "I had not known sin," says he, "but by the law, for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet;" for, "Thou shalt not covet" was a prohibition of the moral law, and not of the cere
Mr. Marsom on the Efficacy of the monial. Besides, what benefit would Death of Christ.
the believing Jews have derived from the abolition of the ceremonial law
[Concluded from p. 643.]
THE apostle contrasting the two covenants, the gospel, styles the one, i. e. the law, "the letter which killeth," of which, he says, they were not made the ministers, but of the other, the new cove nant, the spirit," i. e. the gospel, that spiritual dispensation which giveth life." The one he calls" the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones," referring to the two tables of the covenant, on which the ten commandments were written, which he says was to be done away. The other he calls "the ministration of the spirit." The d one, “the ministration of condemnation," the other, “the ministration of righteousness;" and he shews that the glory of the gospel, the ministration of the spirit and of righteousness, was far superior to that of the law, the ministration of death and condemnation. The latter, he says, was done away, was abolished, but the former, i. e. the gospel, remaineth. The apostle, in this passage, explicitly and expressly affirms that the law, the old covenant, is abolished and done away; and this he affirms not merely and exclusively of the ceremonial law, but he affirms it of the decalogue, the law written and engraven in stones, which was the ministration of death and condemnation: but as the ceremonial law was
Walker, of what denomination, and for
not written and engraven in stones, nor was it the law of death, what he here says cannot apply to it, but only to the two tables containing the ten commandments, which were the covenant made with Israel at Mount Sinai, and deposited in the ark, which is called the ark of the covenant. Again, when Paul says, that "the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus had made him free from the law of sin and death," to what law does he refer? Not to the ceremonial law, but to the law contained in the deca
2 Cor. iii. 6-14.
only? If the moral law still remained in force, they would have been left under the curse, and in a state of condemnation; for it is not the ceremonial, but the moral law, the breach of which is threatened with a curse.
Such was the severity of the law, that it made no provision for the pardon of the guilty, but pronounced a curse for every transgression. But, "Christ hath resays the apostle, deemed us (qr. bought us off) from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every "But one that hangeth on a tree." how are we delivered from the law by Christ being made a curse, or dying an accursed death? Why plainly thus: as he hereby put an end to the obligation of the Jewish law, which pronounced a curse on every one who did not in all things continue to observe it, by introducing and establishing a better covenant into the world,
even that covenant which God made with Abraham, of which this was the principal article, that faith should be imputed to him for righteousness :"+ the introducing of that new covenant superseding the old covenant, the law of Moses, and doing away its conWere the benefits demning power. and blessings of this redemption, then, to be confined to those who were under the law? Were they redeemed merely for their own sakes? Far otherwise. The law was the harrier that prevented the introduction of the Gentiles into the kingdom of God: for their sakes, therefore, it was necessary that it should be removed. "Christ," says the apostle, "hath redeemed us from the curse of the
law, that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ, that we might receive the promise of the spirit through
Gal. iii. 13.
+ Dr. Chandler, cited in Belsham on the Epistles of Paul.
faith." Again, he says, "that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers, and that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy." Paul, who was the minister of the Gentiles, kept this circumstance perpetually in view. It was the great "inystery of the gospel which had been kept secret from the foundation of the world, but was now made manifest by the appearing of Jesus Christ." Now this could not be accomplished without the abolition of the law, which shut the Gentiles out from all interest in, and participation of the blessing of Abraham.
I think, it will appear that the law is here personified as the accuser who had the power of death, to which the word abolish will naturally apply, but not so naturally to a real person which law indeed, had the poorer of death, of which it was the ministra tion. The word diabolos, translated the Devil, literally means the accuser, and our Lord himself thus personifies the law of Moses: "There is one," says he to the Jews, who accuseth you, Moses, in whom ye trust." This clause, therefore, should be rendered, "that through death he might abolish him that had the power of death, that is, the accuser." Hence also we see the propriety of the writer's ascribing the fear of death produced by the law, to the seed of Abraham, to whom only the law was given, and who were under it. How, then, did he deliver them from the fear of death? Evidently by taking away sin, which is the sting of death, and by abolishing the law, which is the strength of sin. If, then, we are right in the inpretation of this passage, and I think we are, it expressly asserts that the death of Jesus Christ had for its object the abolition of the law, that by so doing he might deliver them, who, through fear of death, were perpetually subject to bondage. The covenant from Mount Sinai, says Paul, gendereth to bondage; through the fear of death which it pronounces for every transgression. Through the gospel we receive, not the spirit of bondage again to fear, but the spirit of adop tion, whereby we cry Abba, Father. Therefore the apostle tells the Romans, that sin shall not have dominion over them. Why? Because its power is taken away by the death of Christ; for, he adds, ye are not under the law, but under grace, i. e. the gracious dispensation of the gospel. There is therefore now, since Christ hath died for sins, no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus; for, he adds, the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Hence we see the force and propriety of those strong expressions of Scripture, "When he had by himself purged our sins, he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high. But now once, in the end of the world, hath he appeared to put away
The writer to the Hebrews further established this important doctrine. He says, "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he (rather it, the fear of death) taketh not hold of angels; but of the seed of Abraham he (it) taketh hold."+
The word rendered destroy, means to abolish, annul, make useless or of none effect. The power of death, evidently, I think, means, the unlimited, universal power of death. This seems manifest from that universal fear, at least with respect to the seed of Abraham, which this power is represented as producing, deliverance from which, is here said to be the great object of the death of Christ. Now it is certain that such a power cannot be possessed by any being, in heaven or carth, except that Being who is the Author of life, and with whom alone are the issues of death. In him it exists, and cannot exist any where else, unless communicated by him. But we no where read that HE has communicated such a power to any being whatever. Is it possible, then, to suppose that God would invest such a being as the Devil is supposed to be, the implacable enemy of God and man, with such a power? Impossible. From these observations,
Chap. ii. 14-16. + See margin.
sin by the sacrifice of himself. But this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sin, for ever sat down on the right hand of God. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." All this, as we have seen, refers to the PAST transgressions of mankind, the sin of the world which the Lamb of God was to take away, by which all men are brought into a state of privilege, the kingdom of God opened, and all invited to partake of its blessings and promises.
If, then, Christ died to put away the former transgressions of mankind only, and not their future offences, it may be asked, How were their future sins to be done away? To what are we now to look for the remission of sins and justification in the sight of God I answer, not to atoning blood; not to the death of Christ as an eapiatory sacrifice; not to his vicarious sufferings, the innocent in the room and stead of the guilty, or to the imputation of his righteousness to us for our justification; but to the riches of the divine grace and mercy exhibited in the new and better covenant, by which the old covenant has been superseded and done away; through which the God of peace brought again our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead, and which has been ratified by his blood, with which he is figuratively represented as entering into heaven itself, triumphantly, as it were, carrying with him the seal of the new and everlasting covenant which he died to establish, there to appear in the presence of God for us; which is what is meant, and all perhaps that is meant, by his being an advocate with the Father, and by his ever living to make intercession for us. And as it is said of Moses, that when he had spoken every precept unto the people according to the law, he sprinkled with blood both the book and all the people saying, This is the blood of the covenant which God hath enjoined unto you; so the blood of Christ, the blood of the new covenant, is represented as sprinkled on the conscience, purging it from dead works to serve the living God.
The old covenant was surrounded with terrors, guarded with threatenings of condemnation and death; and so terrible was it, that Moses said, I
exceedingly fear and quake, and the
* Acts xiii. 32, 33, 28.
the apostle, by the commandment of the everlasting God, to be published among all nations for the obedience of faith.
style it a better covenant than the
From the foregoing observations, we learn that the efficacy of the blood of Christ, and all the benefits arising from it to mankind, is to be attributed to it, not as the blood of atonement, which it is never said to be in the New Testament, but to its being that blood by which the new covenant is confirmed.
Let us now take a view of the covenant itself, in which we are so deeply interested, and upon which our hope of pardon and salvation rests. The writer to the Hebrews, comparing Christ with Moses, the Mediator of the first covenant, says,* "But now hath he obtained a more excellent
ministry, by how much also he is the
mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: not according to the cove nant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: and they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more." How great and precious are the promises of this covenant! How full of grace and mercy! It contains no denunciations of wrath, no sentence of condemnation for every offence, but the absolute promise of forgiveness. Well might this writer
Heb. viii. 6-12.
A NOTE in pp. 36, 37, of Mr.
Kentish's delivered at Bristol, has drawn forth from their concealment a few remarks on a passage in Dr. Paley's Natural Theology which I wrote some time ago, and had almost forgotten. Towards the conclusion of the chapter on the Unity of the Deity we read as follows :'*** Certain, however, it is, that the whole argument for the Divine unity goes no farther than to an unity of counsel." This observation was evidently intended to guard against a conclusion which might otherwise have been drawn from the chapter in which it is found. What that conclusion is, admits of but little doubt. But could the Archdeacon's work fall into the hands of a man who had never heard of three persons in one God, the above remark would perplex him to some purpose. In reading the work up to this very observation, he would find that the author's object was to prove the existence of a mind by which the universe was contrived and executed; and nothing would be farther from his thoughts than the suspicion that more minds than one were concerned in the design. When, moreover, he should recollect the chapter on the personality of the Deity, and the remarkable words with which it concludes; "Design must have had a designer; that designer must have been a person; that person is God;"
* Chap. x, 28, 29.