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 any thing of the land of Canaan, that it consisted in a typical exhibition of the heavenly inheritance, and comprized every thing that imports a typical servitude, and was to be abolished upon the introduction of the New Testament. XXVI. 2dly, When learned men say, that the Old Testament commences from the exodus out of Egypt, and from mount Sinai, and call it the will and purpose of giving the land of Canaan, they understand not by that will, or that purpose, the counsel or decree of God 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 an irrevocable promise. But that promise was not first made at mount Sinai, but long before, even to the Patriarch Abraham, four hundred and thirty years before the giving of the law, Gen. xii. 7. Unto thy seed will I give this land. And it was confirmed by solemn signs, and sealed by the blood of sacrifices, Gen. xv. 7. We therefore conclude, that, if the Old Testament be the declaration of the will of God about giving the land of Canaan, it did not commence from Moses, but from Abraham. XXVII. 3dly, Hence it appears, what answer ought to be given to Jer. xxxi. 32. and Gal. iv. 24: namely, that the first institution of the Old Testament is not treated of in these places, but the solemn renewal and confirmation of it, and the accession of many new rites, which we mentioned sect. 18. For, God himself often testified concerning that time, that he did those things in virtue of his covenant entered into with Abraham, Exod. ii. 24. "And God remembered his covenant with Abraham" &c. and chap. viii. 8. " And I will bring you into the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and I will give it you for an inheritance." It therefore remains, that the Testament, about giving the land of Canaan, was not then first published, but solemnly renewed, when God was now about to accomplish it. And this is what Jeremiah and Paul intend in the places quoted. XXVIII. 4thly, What the apostle says, Heb. ix. 18. Neither the first Testament was [initiated] dedicated without blood, is very general, and may be extended to the sacrifices, which were slain at God's command. The very learned Vol. I. Cloppenburg S s Cloppenburg in Schola Sacrificiorum, Problem. 1. sect. 3. would prove from the same passage of Paul, that there was no interval of time between the first promise of the future seed of the woman, and the first sacrifice. "The apostle, says he, confirms this our opinion, when he says that the Old Testament was not dedicated without blood, and that without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. For hence it follows, that, with that promise about the future seed of the woman, there was either no solemnizing of the spiritual covenant of God with man, by which he might hope for, and believe the remission of sins, or that there was none without shedding of blood." The apostle, indeed, mentions what we have in Exod. xxiv. as an example. But it does not follow, that no other example of that truth could be given before that, or that any would mistake the subject, who should add to the apostle's argument, what we find Gen. xv. about the beasts which were slain by Abraham. XXIX. And the term dedicated ought not to be so insisted upon, as if that necessarily inferred, that the testament thus dedicated was entirely new. For, even that may be said to be dedicated, which is again solemnly dedicated, though the thing itself was in being long before. Thus the author of the 1 Maccabees, chap. vi. writes about the temple profaned by Antiochus, και ενεκαινίσθη το αγίασμα ως το πρότερον and the sanctuary was dedicated as before. Yet Antiochus had only profaned, but not destroyed the sanctuary, so as to make it necessary to build one entirely new, which Judas Maccabeus purified, chap. iv. 43. and thus dedicated it to God. From this was a trama the feast of the dedication, John x. 22. On which place Grotius comments; “to dedicate, whence the appellation, yama, and feast of dedication, in Hebrew is used of any dedication, whether the first, or that which is renewed. And indeed, when the Apostle was saying, Heb. x. 20. that Christ zama, consecrated a way to heaven, he by no means intimated, that there was no way to heaven before that time. XXX. But let us allow, the Old Testament was then new; and that this may be proved by the word iy, let us also allow, that the Apostle, speaking of the shedding of blood, with which the testament was dedicated, does not look back to any time prior to that described Exod. xxiv. Yet nothing will be concluded in favour of the hypothesis. For, the Old Testament was certainly new at that time, not absolutely and in its whole substance, but only with respect to those circumstances under which it was proposed to Israel, promising them the the immediate possession of the land of Canaan, for an inheritance, together with the imposition of so many new rites. We ought to be upon our guard against being guilty of the sophism, called arguing from what is hypothetical to what is absolute. As these things are neither unskilfully nor improbably observed by very learned men, I could have wished, that hard saying had not dropt from the learned person, that they, who thus proceed, wrest this passage contrary to the meaning of the Holy Ghost. Cannot such a dispute as this be determined, without such warmth and vehemence of language? XXXI. On Deut. v. 2, 3. many things have been taken notice of by interpreters. I imagine nothing appears more simple and solid, than what the very learned Dutch interpreters have observed, to the following purpose: that this covenant was not entered into with the fathers, in the same manner with all its circumstances and particular laws, and in that form (as we use to speak) in which it was revealed to Israel at Sinai or Horeb. For, even the believing patriarchs had the substance of the moral and ceremonial law, and, by the grace of God, managed their religious worship according to it. This exposition is confirmed chiefly by two reasons: 1st, That it is no new thing in the sacred writings, for something to be said not to be mentioned before, and to be revealed at that time, when it is more clearly discovered, and some new addition made to it. Thus the apostle writes Rom. xvi. 25, 26." Which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest ;" and yet the same apostle says, preached before the Gospel to Abraham, Gal. iii. 8. and to the other ancient fathers, Heb. iv. 2. It was therefore kept secret not simply, but in a comparative sense: not preached in the same manner as now. The apostle himself thus explains the matter Eph. iii. 5. "Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed to his holy apostles." What God here says may be taken in the same sense; that he did not make this covenant with their fathers, namely, in the same manner and form, by speaking to them from the midst of thunderings and lightenings, giving them the law of the covenant written with his own hand with an addition of so many ceremonies. 2dly, It also appears that these words of God not only may, but ought to be explained in this manner. For since the decalogue, which constitutes the principal part of the federal precepts, was likewise, with respect to its substance, given to the ancient Patriarchs, as God's covenant-people, for a rule of gratitude and a new life and the sum of it was comprized in those words S s 2 : spoke spoke to Abraham, which God, when he formerly entered into covenant with him, said, Gen. xvii. 1. “I am the Almighty God, walk continually before me and be thou [sincere] perfect" it cannot therefore absolutely be denied, that that covenant, whose first and principal law is the decalogue, wast also entered into with the antient patriarchs. Neither, as has been often hinted, do all the ceremonies owe their original to Sinai or Horeb. From the whole I conclude, that it cannot be proved from the alleged passages, that the Old Testament took its first commencement from the Exodus out of Egypt or from Mount Sinai, and that it is more probable, and more agreeable to the analogy of Scripture, to adhere to the received opinion. But how great the difference between the economy of the Old and New Testament, and what prerogatives the last has above the first, we shall carefully explain in its time and place. 1. W CHA P. IV. : E are now first of all to consider those benefits which belong to the covenant of grace, taken absolutely and in itself, and therefore common to all those in covenant, under what economy soever which we enumerate in the following order: 1. Election. 2. Effectual calling to the communion of Christ. 3. Regeneration. 4. Faith. 5. Justifica6. Spiritual peace. 7. Adoption. 8. The Spirit of Adoption. 9. Sanctification. 10. Conservation, or preservation. 11. Glorification. The devout meditation of all these things cannot fail to be glorious to God, agreeable, delightful and salutary to ourselves. tion. II. The beginning and first source of all grace is election, both of Christ the Saviour and of those to be saved by him. For even Christ was chosen of God, and by an eternal and immutable decree, given to be our Saviour; and therefore is said to be "foreordained before the foundation of the world," 1 Pet. i.. And they whom Christ was to save were given to him by the same decree. John xvii. 6. They are ŝaid to be "chosen in Christ," Eph. i. 4. That is, not only by Christ as God, and consequently the elector of them; but also in Christ as Mediator, and on that account the elected, who by one and the same act, was given to them to be their head and lord, and at the same time they were given to him to be his members and property, to be saved by his merit and power, and to enjoy communion with him. And therefore the book of election is called "The book of life of the Lamb," Rev. xiii. 8. Not only because life is to be ob tained in virtue of the Lamb slain, but also, because the lamb takes up the first page of that book, is the head of the rest of the Elect," the first born among many brethren and jointheirs with him." Rom. viii. 29, 17. But we before treated of this election of Christ the Mediator, book 2. chap. iii. § 8. and now we are to speak of the election of those to be saved. III. We thus describe it: "Election is the eternal, free and immutable counsel of God, about revealing the glory of his grace, in the eternal salvation of some certain persons. Most of the parts of this description are in these words of the apostle, Eph. i. 4, 5, 6. " according as he hath chosen us in him, before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy, and without blame before him in love having predestinated us unto the adoption of children, by Jesus Christ to himself, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." IV. We call Election, the counsel of God, by which term we mean that which is commonly called decree. Paul on this subject calls it the purpose of God. This term appears very familiar to the apostle, which he very frequently makes use of, and denotes a sure, firm, and fixed decree of God, which he can never repent of, and which depends on nothing out of himself, but is founded only in his good pleasure. All this is intimated, 2 Tim. i. 9. " who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace." To this purpose also, Eph. i. 11. "we are predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will." And elsewhere the same apostle also speaks of the purpose of Election, Rom. viii. 28. "who are called according to his purpose, and Rom. ix. 11. " the purpose of God according to Election." And thus we distinguish this internal election, and of counsel, from the external and of fact, which signifies the actual separation of believers from unbelievers, by effectual calling. In this sense the Lord Jesus said to his apostles, John xv. 19. "but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." But the eternal and internal decree of God could not be the cause of this hatred, but only as it discovered itself by the event, and by the actual separation of the Apostles from the world. To this we may also it seems apply what the apostle writes, I Cor. i. 26, 27. "ye see your calling brethren, how that not many wise men, &c. But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world, to confound the wise," &c. Where he seems to take calling and election for the same thing. Nor does this internal |