23. Inafmuch as the fuperior glory of the Chriftian difpenfation above the Jewish, is a fubject of which our Author has little or no knowledge; and inafmuch as his ignorance of it, is at the bottom of all the deftructive errors maintained in thefe volumes, I beg your patience, Sir, while I dwell a little upon it, referring thofe who defire further information, to Mr. Fletcher's Checks, and to your Sermons and Tracts on the fubject.

As to the Mofaic difpenfation, it is reprefented every where in the Scripture as imperfect. God declares by his prophet, that he gave them ftatutes which were not good and judgments that were not righteous. St. Peter affirms, it was a yoke which neither they nor their fathers could bear. St. Paul affirms, it could not make the comers thereunto perfect, that it could not perfect the worshipper, as pertaining to the confcience, and that there was a difannulling of the commandment, going before, because of the unprofitableness of it, for that the law made nothing perfect. He affures us that if the first covenant had been faultless, no place would have been found for a fecond, but finding fault with this, he fays, Behold the day is come, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Ifrael and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. And referring to the time when this covenant fhould take place, the Lord declares by the Prophet Zechariah, He that is feeble among them at that day fhall be as David, and the house of David as God, (viz. conformed to God) as the angel of the Lord before them. And no wonder, for the Holy Ghost was not then fully given, either as a spirit of truth or of holiness, becaufe Jefus was not then glorified. But as foon as the gospel difpenfation was compleated and the spirit fully given, then, what the law of Mofes could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God having fent his own Son in the likeness of finful flesh, condemned fin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in those who walk not after

the

the flesh, but after the fpirit. And examples appeared, fuch as were not to be found in former times, men who could fay in their measure, As he was fo are we in this world; and Be ye followers of us as we alfo are of Christ.

24. Therefore when he afferts, p. 327, and again, p. 346, "That the idea of Chrift's fetting up a more excellent law, than that contained in the books of Mofes, is replete with folly and blafphemy; and p. 328, that it "goes beyond folly and borders on madness;" and p. 300 calls it, "horrible blafpemy," it is plain he neither underftands what he says, nor whereof he affirms; and it is well for him, that blafphemy against the Son of man may be forgiven. Indeed the whole plan adopted by our Author of explaining, not the Old Teftament by the New, (which has been the common method) but the New by the Old, as it is quite new and extraordinary, fo it reflects a difhonour upon Chrift and his Apoftles not to be endured by Chriflians. For it implies, that inftead of anfwering the character given of them, as cafting light upon a dark difpenfation, by supplying what was wanting to compleat the revelation of God's will to mankind, they darkened counfel by words without knowledge, uttering nothing but what had need to be carried to the Old Teftament for explanation. On this plan it may be asked, Whereto then, ferveth the Gospel? What valuable end does this fecond and after part of divine revelation anfwer? It feems, it neither teaches any new doctrine nor explains any formerly taught. What use then fhall we make of it? Nay, but inafmuch as the New Teftament was given after the Old, and was intended to be a fuller and clearer difcovery of God's will to mankind, it would be much more confonant with reafon and truth to retort our Author's argument, and to fay, "Let us Chriftians carry what we hear from Mr. Madan concerning Polygamy, to the New Teftament: if it exactly tallies with that, we may be fure it is a right interpretation of the Old; if otherwife, it must be false; because the mind of God can never vary, dif

agree

agree with, or contradict itfelf." This we fhall accordingly do, by and by, and as we shall undoubtedly find it prohibited in the New Teftament we may, according to our Author's reafoning, conclude from thence that it is alfo forbidden in the Old.

25. As to what he affirms, p. 169, "That David died as really a Chriftian-believer as St. Paul did," I beg leave to diffent from him, and impute his affertion to his want of a better acquaintance with that Gospel of which he is a Minifler. The truth is, David was not a Chriftian-believer at all; he was a Jewish-believer, and no more. He believed in a Meffiah to come, and like all the Old Teftament faints, only faw the promises afar off, even the promife of Chrift to come in the flesh, and the promife of the great effufion of the Holy Ghoft. But the cafe is different with Chriftianbelievers; they believe in Chrift already come, who hath loved them, and given himself for them; they have received the gift of the Holy Ghoft, Chrift liveth in them, and the life they live in the flesh, is by faith in the Son of God. Now if Mr. Madan will prove any thing to the purpofe by example, he muft fhew us fome of thefe practifing polygamy, and if he can fhew us further, that God approved of them in it, we will then, and not before, conclude ourselves to be at liberty to go and do likewife. As for the Old Teftament faints, they are no examples to us in doubtful cafes, nor can any thing be proved to be lawful for us becaufe they did it, till it is proved first, that God approved of them in what they did, as acting according to the beft light of their difpenfation; and fecondly, that our difpenfation does not exceed theirs in light and glory. Till Mr. Madan therefore has proved these two points, I fhall beg leave to difmifs his whole reafoning from their example as of no weight at all in this controversy.

I am, Rev. Sir, your Servant in Chrift,

[To be continued.]

J. BENSON.

The

The True ORIGINAL of the SOUL.

CHAP. X.

Natural reafons, proving the foul's propagation.

WE

[Concluded from page 606.]

E have proved the foul's propagation, by teftimonies and reasons out of Scripture: now we are to proceed to natural reafons. As to the oppofite opinion, it is not only contrary to Scripture and Reafon, but also to the whole order of nature, and of all God's extraordinary works. For although the fupreme goodness of God would not content itself without producing more good, for which cause he created the world: yet for as much as his essence is chiefly manifested in the virtues which are effential to himfelf only, and the end of all his works is to manifest himself, which as it is the greateft good, is his greatest glory: he therefore could not without difparagement to his own excellency, work always immediately in the matters of his creatures, as in creating new fubftances of nothing, but only in bringing to a higher perfection, by qualifying them with his own effential virtues, fo far as the creature is capable and for this caufe, at their firft creation he difpofed all things in fuch order, that they might perfift of themselves, without his immediate working any more in their matter or substance, which order we call nature.

And it pleased the wildom of God to make choice of this course, not only for the former reafon, namely because it was most fit for the excellency of his nature, which might work no more in the fubftance of his creatures than needs muft: but also for the meanness of ours, which requires his working by means, after a natural order, proportionable to that reafon he hath given us (which only our nature was capable of) the better to manifest himself unto us.

Again, that fo he might propagate his church of mankind fucceffively by the course of nature, who thus according to his decree might, and did all fall most fitly and justly in one Adam by nature; as they are reftored again moft fitly and juftly in another Adam, Christ Jesus, by grace.

And lastly, that he might not work perpetual miracles, which only manifeft his power, one of the meaneft of his attributes which yet is fo fully manifefted without it, in the first creation of all things of nothing, and still preserving them.

By this mediate manner of God's working, I mean the rules of nature, and that order which God inftituted for all creatures in the beginning: it is impoffible that Adam fhould be our father and we his children, if we have not our whole man, as well foul as body from him. For if we receive only the least part of ourselves, that is, our bodies from him, then he doth not beget a man, that is to say, a reasonable creature, but only I know not what formeless matter or dead carcafe: for fuch an uncouth thing is the body without the foul: and though a foul comes afterward from another, that is nothing to the parents, for they beget only the former and if man does not beget the whole man, he cannot poffibly be faid to be a father to the whole man.

part of a crea

And if fatherand that comes

Nay, man would then be fo far from being a father to the whole man, that he could be father to no part of him. For he can be put partly a father that begets but ture, and fo not a whole father to any part. hood confifts efpecially in giving the foul, only from God, He only is a father to the whole man: yea, is not there much more reason to say, God only is our father, because the foul, the more noble part, comes from him; than that Adam is, because the bafer part, the body comes from him.

And thus he cannot be father to our bodies, unless to our fouls alfo yea, it is impoffible in nature, that he should beget any thing without the foul.

VOL. VI.

4 M

If