be freely admitted into the congregation and the fanctuary (u). The unchangeable law of nature, requires a perfect obedience both in heart and life, which no fon of Adam can fay with truth that he has yielded. Yet we find God prefcribed to the Ifraelites a form of glorying in their obedience to the Mofaic law, and of pleading upon that obedience for covenant bleffings. Deut. xxvi. 12,— 15. "When thou haft made an end of tithing all the tithes of thine increase, the third year, "which is the year of tithing, and haft given it "unto the Levite, the ftranger, the fatherless, and the widow, that they may eat within thy "gates, and be filled; then thou shalt fay be"fore the Lord thy God, I have brought away "the hallowed things out of my house, and allo "have given them unto the Levite, and unto "the ftranger, to the fatherlefs, and to the wi"dow, according to all thy commandments "which thou halt commanded me: I have not "tranfgreffed thy commandments, neither have "I forgotten them. I have not eaten thereof "in my mourning, neither have I taken away "ought thereof for any unclean use, nor given .. ought thereof for the dead: but I have hear"kened to the voice of the Lord my God, and "have done according to all that thou haft com"manded me. Look down from thy holy ha"bitation, from heaven, and blefs thy people "Ifrael, and the land which thou haft given us, "as thou fwareft unto our fathers, a land that "floweth with milk and honey." Would God have directed them, think you, to glory in their obfervance of that law, if, in fact, the fincereft among them had not obferved it. Yet doubtlefs that was the cafe, if its demands were the fame as those of the law of nature. But indeed, the things mentioned in that form of glorying were only external performances, and one may fee, with half an eye, many might truly boaft they had done them all, who were ftrangers notwithftanding to charity, flowing from a pure heart, a good conscience, and faith unfeigned. Job, who probably represents the Jews after their return from the Babylonifh captivity, was perfect and upright (v). Zacharias and Elizabeth were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless (w). The young man, who came to Jefus, enquiring what he fhould do to inherit eternal life, profeffed that he had kept the commandments from his youth up, and our Lord does not charge him with falfhood in that profeffion (x). Paul was, touching the righteoufnefs which was of the law, blameless (y). Yet Job curfes the day in which he was born (z); Zacharias is guilty of unbelief (a); the young man, in the gofpel, loves this world better than Chrift (b); and Paul himself groans to be delivered from a body of fin and death (c). These feeming contradictions will vanifh, if we take notice, that all of thefe, though chargeable with manifold breaches of the law of nature, had kept the letter of the Mofaic law, and thus were en titled to the earthly happiness promised to its obfervers. Indeed, in many paffages of Scripture, perfection means no more, than a ftrict adherence to purity of worship, in oppofition to idolatry and other grofs violations of the Sinai covenant. And therefore, men who, if fincere in religion, were far from being eminent for inward holiness, are notwithstanding termed perfect. Thus it is faid of Afa, that he did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, as did David his father; and that his heart was perfect with the Lord all his days, 1 Kings xv. 11, 14. And yet he cruelly imprifons a prophet for honestly reproving him, and fo far from amending his ways, he goes off the ftage without any record of his repentance and reformation: the last thing faid of him being one of the worst, that, in his fickness, he fought unto the phyficians and not unto God. On the other hand, though Solomon had grace in fincerity, yet it is faid 1 Kings xi. 4. his heart was not perfect with God as David's was: becaufe he was not perfect and fteady like David in maintaining purity of worship. This remark was made long ago by the pious Mr. Hooker of Hartford in New England. Application of Redemption, book 10. p. 661. and with equal reafon Bifhop Warburton has obferved, Divine Legation, vol. II. part I. p. 355,-360. that the title of Man after God's own heart, was given to David, not on account of his private morals, but of a behaviour fo different from that of Saul, in fteadily maintaining purity of worthip. And much for the fame reafon, God fays of Samuel in oppofition to Eli, 1 Sam. ii. 35. I will raise me me up a faithful prieft, that fhall do according to all which is in my heart and in my mind. $5. You will afk, if this reasoning is juft, why did the prophets fo often infift upon it, that facrifices and meer outward obedience were not acceptable to God (d)? I answer, in many fuch paffages, the Jews are rebuked for neglecting the moral law, and placing all their religion in the ceremonial fo that it is not so much meer outward morality, that was blamed in them, as meer ritual religion, abfurdly intermingled with the worship of idols, and accompanied with theft, murder, adultery, and other grofs violations of moral duties (e). Befides, even these rites are not abfolutely condemned. It is only fuggefted, that they have no intrinfic worth and value, that God does not love them for their own fakes, and therefore, under a more perfect difpenfation, would abrogate them and that though these rites, joined to external moral obedience, might fecure temporal bleffings, yet that they could not entitle, as many of the Jews, and even Paul himfelf, before his converfion fondly dreamed, to the fpecial favour and friendship of God, and to eternal happiness. It may be further enquired, if meer external obedience was the condition of the Sinai covenant, why were not all who yielded fuch obedience, bleffed according to the promife, with long life and profperity in the land of Canaan. I have no fpecial concern with this difficulty, fince it is almoft equal on the contrary hypothefis. Thofe (d) Pfal. 1. 8. Hof. v. 6, 7. vi. 6. Amos v. 21,-24. Ifa. i. 11. xliii. 23. Jer. vii. 21. who who afk the question, will find it as hard to anfwer it in a fatisfying manner, and yet are as much obliged to attempt it as I am. The hypothefis of those, who think that the promise of temporal profperity in the Sinai covenant, was rather made to the Jewish nation in general, than to particular Ifraelites (f), would, if well founded, afford a full and eafy folution to this difficulty. But what has been obferved in the preceding fection, § 2. perfectly confutes that notion. I would only observe, that if our views of the grounds of God's government were more complete, we should fee no caufe in any inftance to arraign the divine veracity. Men, who feemed to live blamelefs lives, might, notwithstanding, be punished for outward fins; I mean either for outward fins fecretly coinmitted by themfelves, or for the outward fins of parents, which were often vifited upon the children to the third and fourth generations. § 6. There is another difficulty, which merits a fuller difcuffion. The Ifraelites were forbidden to covet what was their neighbours, and to luft after evil things, and were required to love the Lord with all their heart and foul, and mind and ftrength, and to love their neighbours as themfelves. Hence it is plaufibly argued, that abftaining from actual injuftice, freedom from idolatry and other grofs fins, and an obfervance of the external inftitutions of God's worship, was not the only condition of the Sinai covenant. That conclufion, however, is more than the ་ promifes will warrant. These precepts unqueftionably prove, that God prefcribed to the Jews Bai (f) Alhardt de Roat Apol. Derit, p. 72, and 172. D inward |