were soon after more illustrious by the preaching of John, proclaiming the kingdom of heaven to be at hand, Matt. iii. 2; and of Christ himself, asserting it was already come, and even among the people of the Jews, Luke xvii. 21. Yet the kingdom of heaven did not directly and all at once attain to its full state of maturity, but by slow degrees acquired strength, till Christ, having finished the work which the Father gave him to do, completed all by his death, and ratified the New Testament. By this death of Christ, the Old Testament was of right abrogated. Yet there was an accession of greater solemnity to the New, when, after the death, resurrection, and ascension of our Lord, upon the plentiful effusion of the Spirit on the apostles, the doctrine of salvation was proclaimed over all the habitable world, God, at the same time, bearing witness by signs and wonders, and various virtues and gifts of the Holy Ghost. Nevertheless, the church did not enjoy the full liberty of the New Testament, till after God had rejected the people of Israel, who stiffly adhered to their ceremonies, till their temple was burnt, and their whole land was smitten with a curse, which time of full liberty the apostle in his day, Heb. ii. 5, called "the world to come." The close of beginning of the New Tes lesced into the Old and tament coa one point. XVIII. Hence we see, that the close of the Old Testament gradually vanishing away, and the begining of the New gradually gaining ground, both centered in one point of time. For, as on the birth of Christ a more joyful period shone forth, and the songs of the pious were heard, concerning the truth of God's covenant confirmed by the accomplishment of the promises; so Christ acknowledged himself to be subject to the laws of the Old Testament by his circumcision, and the rites following upon it. And as the kingdom of heaven, which is a kingdom of liberty, was preached by our Lord, John iv. 21, 23, so he ordered, in the mean time, the person cleansed of his leprosy to offer the sacrifice enjoined by the law of Moses, Matt. viii. 4; which is an evident indication of the Old Testament still maintaining its ground. Of right it was entirely abrogated, when, upon Christ's death, the veil of the temple was rent, and the holy of holies, before hid and concealed, was then set open to all; and by the blood of a dying Christ the New Testament was sealed. However, for some time the apostles themselves apprehended that there was a sanctity in the ceremonies, till Peter was better taught by a heavenly vision, Acts x. 11, &c. In fine, the church struggled with the observance of these ceremonies, now in the pangs of death, till Jerusalem was taken and destroyed by the Romans, and the temple set on fire; then, together with these, all remains of the Old Testament, which were long before condemned to death, quite expired, and made way for a New Testament, blazing forth in the full lustre of its liberty. The New has also its ; XIX. And here again we are to observe various periods, which are distinctly described in the prophetic writings, especially in the mystical revelation of John the church has already experienced some of them, and expects the rest with faith and patience. Periods, I say, not relating to any new worship, either instituted or to be instituted by God, after the preaching of the everlasting gospel; but respecting very different vicissitudes in the church, and times either more adverse, or more prosperous, in which truth and piety were either oppressed, and forced to conceal themselves in deserts, being wounded and spent by many persecutions, or then victoriously triumphed over their enemies, and were placed on an illustrious throne, which dazzled the eyes with refulgent beams of light. Of all these we are to speak in their place. Others make three econo 1. Under the promise. XX. And though we imagine we have reckoned up properly enough, and agreeably to the sacred writings mies. the economies of the times, yet some very learned men have thought otherwise, who are better pleased with the trichotomy, or threefold division, than with the received dichotomy, or twofold distribution. They therefore consider the administration of the covenant of grace, 1st, Under the promise, and before the law, which they contend to have been a promise of mere grace and liberty, without any yoke or burden of an accusing law. 2dly, Under the law, where they will have the Old Testament begin. 3dly, 3. Under the Under the Gospel, where the New begins. This diversity would not have been of that importance, as to oblige us therefore to throw up the cause we plead for, if it consisted only in the computation of times. But seeing a vast difference is made between these economies, it will not be from the purpose more minutely to examine these thoughts. 2. Under the law. gospel. The fathers did not enjoy XXI. It appears that the fathers living before the before Moses Mosaic law, were loaded with a much lighter burden full liberty. of ceremonies than the Israelites were under Moses; yet it does not appear that they enjoyed full liberty, without any yoke and burden of an accusing law. For, not to mention the law of nature, which, with its appendages of curses, was handed down by constant instruction, they had precepts concerning sacrifices, not indeed binding them to a certain time and place, but yet enjoining sacrifices (which indeed were not willworship), and distinguishing clean from the unclean beasts. This, I imagine, the very learned persons will not deny. At least the celebrated Cocceius finds fault with Grotius, who affirms, that the offering of Abel was made "without any command of God, from the dictates of reason only," and he insists, that Abel could not have offered in faith "without the word of God;" and that he did not offer "according to his own pleasure and fancy, but the threefold book I. chap. by the direction of the Holy Spirit, Adam doubtless being the interpreter, and setting an example here." The same thing he proves at large, in Sum. de Fœd. § 305: On Gen. iv. § 14, 19, 20. And another of those, whose opinion we are now examining, writes to this purpose: "The sacrifices of Momma on believers were doubtless of divine institution:" which economy, after he had proved by various arguments, he thus con- 3. § 10. cludes: "In fine, if God made a distinction between clean and unclean animals before the deluge, which was done on account of sacrifices, doubtless God also appointed sacrifices." But in every sacrifice there was a remembrance of sins not yet expiated, and as Athanasius speaks, ovadioμos, a reproaching of, and a hand-writing against, the sacrificers. For the reproaching with sin consists not only in this, that the offering of sacrifices was limited to a certain time and place, as was done under Moses; but in the very offering of the sacrifices; for when a man slew and burnt the animals, which God granted him for food, he thereby signified that he himself deserved destruction; nay, and to perish in avenging flames for ever; and that he, who by the one offering of himself was truly to expiate the sins of all the elect, was not yet come; and that when he offered frolicsome animals, who are apt to go astray from the flock, unless kept by the shepherd, thereby he signified the guilt of sin and our going astray, as very learned men have observed, from Isa. liii. 6. XXII. It is therefore strange that a great man, in answer to this question, whether Abel's sacrifice was propitiatory or eucharistical, should say, "that before Moses's time sacrifices for sins were not instituted by God, the design of which was to accuse of sin." That this is said without proof, appears plain: 1st, Because, in that case no sacrifices were instituted before Moses, to be types of the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ. For, as it was necessary there should be an agreement between the type and the antitype, those sacrifices which shadowed forth the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ were also, in their measure, propitiatory; that is, they so expiated sin to the cleansing of the flesh, as at the same time to condemn sin, and to show that they were not sufficient for its real expiation, because they were to be often repeated. Neither do the learned doubt, but that the sacrifices even of the oldest patriarchs were sacraments and types of Christ's sacrifice; for they write, in express words, that "the fathers offered before. Moses's time the same sacrifices with Moses, and apt to signify the same things." 2dly, It also appears, that Job, who, it is probable, lived before, certainly without, the Mosaic polity, offered, by burnt-offerings for his children and friends, in order to expiate the sins they had committed, Job i. 5, xlii. 8. But the end of a burnt offering is to be "accepted for him that Before the law there i were also sacrifices for sin. Cocceius on Gen. vi.,¡ Ibid. 20. On Job i. 5. On Job xlii. 8. offers, to make atonement for him," Lev. i. 4. And by such sacrifices the believers of that time testified (which is the learned person's own observation) that they acknowledged that such a satisfaction was due to God, which was not possible for themselves to make. This was a charge of guilt and inability, which the same great man could not conceal, when he treats of the burnt-offerings offered by Job, at the command of God, for his friends; and expresses himself thus: "For, though many sacrifices were slain, and the man, indeed, upon offering a beast, was no longer deemed a sinner, but a righteous person among men, yet conscience was accused of sin, and consequently offerings were to be accumulated and repeated without end." See the same author on Job ix. 28; but especially on Job vii. 1. "Job complains not (says he) of that servitude whereby we obey God; but of that laid on the fathers, which is a heavy yoke of fear, and of the terror of the law, with the greatest incumbrance of ceremonies.-But though Job seems to have lived before the law of Moses, and not to have been loaded with so many ceremonies as the Israelites, yet his condition was no better than theirs." There were therefore in the sacrifices which God enjoined from the beginning, a reproaching with and an accusation of sin; and consequently a yoke, not consistent with that liberty of the fathers which these learned men imagine. Circumcision Synops. lib. XXIII. And what will they say with respect to cirCoke. cumcision? Was not that also a yoke, since it was not to be performed without blood, and mixed with much pain and shame? Was there not in it an accusation of sin, when the new-born infant could not enter into God's covenant without first shedding his blood? Hence this sacrament was performed on the genital member, to denote the original stain; and by the cutting of a small part of the flesh, the whole man was declared to be worthy of death. Let the learned persons here acknowledge their own words. And what is Burnham, more plain from the writings of the New Testament, iii, c. 6. 19, than that circumcision was considered by the apostles as the principal part of the heavy yoke? Acts xv. 5, compared with ver. 10. Nevertheless, it does not appear that Moses made any addition of rigour to it; seeing it was long before enjoined upon Abraham at first under pain of being cut off. We conclude, therefore, that the condition of the ancient patriarchs is too much extolled above that of the Jewish churches, when it is insisted that they lived in liberty, without any charge of sin, without any yoke; though we readily grant, that the servitude was heightened and the yoke made heavier by the Mosaic polity. And this is what we had to say on the first period. 12. 66 ments of begin the Old Sinai. Coccei 53. § 3. ad 83 quest. 2. See the Epist. Ephes. preface to XXIV. They make the law to be the second period, The arguunder which they would have the Old Testament to those who begin; which they define to be "the will and purpose Testament of God, whereby he determined to give to some of from Mount Abraham's posterity, as his own people, the inheritance Sum. Th. c. of the land of Canaan as his own land; adding, that this testament commenced from the exodus out of Egypt and from Mount Sinai ;" which a very learned person endeavours to prove by several arguments, briefly joined together in the following manner: The Scripture says, Jer. xxxi. 32, that God made the Old Testament with the fathers Animadvers. when he brought them out of Egypt: that is, called them to the inheritance of the land, as of a pledge, &c. In like manner Paul, Gal. iv. 24, says, that the two testaments were signified by Hagar and Sarah, and that the first was truly from Mount Sinai. The same Paul says, Heb. ix. 18, "Neither the first testament was [initiated] dedicated without blood." He has his eye on Exod. xxiv. 8. He says, YKEKάIVIOTαι, it was initiated, therefore that testament then became kaivη, new. Consequently, that testament was then introduced. Nay, Deut. v. 2, 3, it is said, "The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb: the Lord made not this covenant with our fathers." How can we conceive that the fathers had that which, we are told, had not been intimated to them? XXV. We shall make the following reflections on this subject, which we submit to the examination of the learned: 1st, They seemed to confine the Old Testament within too narrow bounds, who define it only by the destination of the land of Canaan as a pledge of naan. heaven; as we showed, sect. 2. Doubtless, according to the Old Testament, the inheritance of the land of Canaan was given to the Israelites; but this does not complete the whole substance of the Old Testament. Paul clearly enough declares, Gal. iv. and Heb. ix. without speaking anything of the land of Canaan, that it consisted in a typical exhibition of the heavenly inheritance, and comprised every thing that imports a typical servitude, and was to be abolished upon the introduction of the New Testament. The Old Testament not the alone alland of Ca consisting in lotment of the not made at XXVI. 2dly, When learned men say, that the Old Testament commences from the exodus out of Egypt, The promise and from Mount Sinai, and call it the will and purpose Canaan was of giving the land of Canaan, they understand not, by Mount Sinai, that will, or that purpose, the counsel or decree of God but 430 years from eternity; nor the execution of that decree, which was not effected at Mount Sinai, but forty years after, when, under the conduct of Joshua, they were introduced into the land; but they understand the declaration of the counsel of God by before. |