VII.

ART. authority than the former Prophet had: and if both are of God, it feems the one cannot make void that which was formerly declared by the other in the name of God. But it is to be confidered, that by the phrases of a ftatute for ever, or throughout all generations, can only be meant, that fuch laws were not tranfient laws, fuch as were only to be obferved whilst they marched through the wilderness, or upon particular occafions; whereas fuch laws which were conftantly and generally to be obferved, were to them perpetual. But that does not import that the Lawgiver himself had parted with all the authority that naturally belongs to him, over his own laws. It only fays, that the people had no power over fuch laws to repeal or change them: they were to bind them always, but that puts no limitation on the Lawgiver himfelf, fo that he might not alter his own conftitutions. Pofitive precepts, which have no real value in themselves, are of their own nature alterable and as in human laws the words of enacting a law for all future times do only make that to be a perpetual law for the fubjects, but do not at all limit the legislative power, which is as much at liberty to abrogate or alter it, as if no fuch words had been in the law; there are alfo many hints in the Old Teftament, which fhew that the precepts of the Mofaical law were to be altered: many plain intimations are given of a time and ftate, in which the knowledge of God was to be fpread over all the earth: and that God was every where to be worshipped. Now this was impoffible to be done without a change in their law and rituals: it being impoffible that all the world fhould go up thrice a year to worship at Jerufalem, or could be ferved by priefts of, the Aaronical family. Circumcifion was a diftinction of one particular race, which needed not to be continued after all were brought under one denomination, and within the fame common privileges.

:

These things hitherto mentioned belong naturally to this part of the Article: yet in the intention of those who framed it, these words relate to an extravagant fort of enthusiasts that lived in thofe days; who abufing fome ill-understood phrafes concerning Juftification by Chrift without the works of the Law, came to fet up very wild notions, which were bad in themfelves, but much more pernicious in their confequences. They therefore fancied that a Chriftian was tied by no law, as a rule or yoke; all these being taken away by Chrift: they faid indeed, that a Chriftian by his renovation became a law to himfelf; he obeyed not any written rule or law, but a

new

VII.

new inward nature: and thus as it is faid that Sadocus ART. miftook his mafter Antigonus, who taught his disciples to ferve God, not for the hope of a reward, but without any expectations, as if he by that affectation of fublimity had denied that there was any reward, and from thence fprung the feet of the Sadducees: fo thefe men, perhaps at firft miftaking the meaning of the New Teftament, went wrong only in their notions; and ftill meant to prefs the neceffity of true holiness, though in another fet of phrases, and upon other motives; yet from thence many wild and ungoverned notions arofe then, and were not long ago revived among us all which flowed from their not understanding the importance of the word Law in the New Testament, in which it ftands most commonly for the complex of the whole Jewish religion, in oppofition to the Chriftian; as the word Law, when it stands for a book, is meant of the five Books of Mofes.

The maintaining the whole frame of that difpenfation, in oppofition to that liberty which the Apoftles granted to the Gentiles, as to the ritual parts of it, was the controversy then in debate between the Apoftles and the Judaizing Chriftians. The ftating that matter aright is a key that will open all thofe difficulties, which with it will appear easy, and without it infuperable. In oppofition to thefe, who thought then that the Old Teftament, having brought the world on to the knowledge of the Meffias, was now of no more ufe, this Article was framed.

The fecond part of the Article relates to a more intricate matter; and that is, whether in the Old Teftament there were any promises made, other than tranfitory or temporal ones, and whether they might look for eternal falvation in that difpenfation, and upon what account? Whether Chrift was the Mediator in that difpenfation, or if they were faved by virtue of their obedience to the laws that were then given them. Those who deny that Chrift was truly God, think that in order to the railing him to those great characters in which he is propofed in the New Teftament, it is neceffary to affert that he gave the firft affurances of eternal happiness, and of a free and full pardon of all fins, in his Gospel: and that in the Old Testament neither the one nor the other were certainly and diftin&tly understood.

It is true, that if we take the words of the covenant that Mofes made between God and the people of Ifrael strictly and as they ftand, they import only temporal bleffings that was a covenant with a body of men and

K.

with

VII.

ART. with their pofterity, as they were a people engaged to the obedience of that law. Now a national covenant could only be established in temporal promifes of public and vifible bleffings, and of a long continuance of them upon their obedience, and in threatenings of as fignal judgments upon the violation of them: but under thofe general promises of what was to happen to them collectively, as they made up one nation, every fingle perfon among them might, and the good men among them did, gather the hopes of a future ftate. It is clear that Moles did. all along fuppofe the being of God, the creation of the world, and the promife of the Meffias, as things fully known and carried down by tradition to his days: fo it seems he did alfo fuppofe the knowledge of a future state, which was then generally believed by the Gentiles as well as the Jews; though they had only dark and confused notions about it. But when God was establishing a covenant with the Jewish nation, a main part of which was his giving them the land of Canaan for an inheritance, it was not neceffary that eternal rewards or punishments fhould be then proposed to them: but from the tenor of the promises made to their forefathers, and from the general principles of natural religion, not yet quite extinguished among them, they might gather this, that under those carnal promifes, bleffings of a higher nature were to be understood. And fo we fee that David had Pf. xvi. 11. the hope of arriving at the prefence of God, and at his right band, where he believed there was a fulness of joy, and pleasures for evermore: and he puts himself in this Pf. xvii. 14, oppofition to the wicked, that whereas their portion was in this life, and they left their fubftance to their children; he fays, that as for him, he thould behold God's face in righteousness, and fhould be fatisfied when he awaked with bis likeness; which feems plainly to relate to a state after this life, and to the refurrection. He carries this oppofition further in another Pfalm, where after he had faid, that men in honour did not continue, but were like the beafts that perifbed: that none of them could purchafe immortality for his brother, that he should fill live for ever, and not fee corruption: they all died and left their wealth to others, and Pi. xlix. 14, like beep they were laid in the grave, where death should feed on them in oppofition to which he fays, that the upright fhould have dominion over them in the morning: which is clearly a poetical expreffion for another day that comes after the night of death. As for himfelf in particular, he fays, that God Jhall redeem my foul (that is, his life, or his body, for in thofe feufes the word foul is used in the

15.

15.

Old

II.

Old Teftament) from the power of the grave: that is, from ART. continuing in that ftate of death; for be ball receive me. VII. This does very clearly fet forth David's belief, both of future happiness, and of the refurrection of his body. To which might be added fome other paffages in the Pfalms, Pf. lxxxiv. Ecclefiaftes, Ifaiah, and Daniel: in all which it appears, 11. that the holy men in that difpenfation did understand, c. that under thofe promises in the Books of Mofes that xcvi. 13. feemed literally to belong to the land of Canaan, and Eccl. xi. 9. other temporal bleflings, there was a fpiritual meaning Ifa. xxv. 8. hid, which it seems was conveyed down by that fucceffion xxvi. 19. of Prophets, that was among them, as the myftical fense Dan. xii. 2.

of them.

xc. 17.

xii. 14.

It is to this that our Saviour feems to appeal, when the Sadducees came to puzzle him with that queftion of the feven brethren, who had all married one wife: he firft tells them, they erred, not knowing the Scriptures; which Mat. xxii, plainly imports, that the doctrine, which they denied, 29. was contained in the Scriptures: and then he goes to prove it, not from thofe more exprefs paffages that are in the Prophets and holy writers, which as fome think the Sadducees rejected; but from the Law, which being the fource of their religion, it might feem a juft prejudice against any doctrine, efpecially if it was of great confequence, that it was not contained in the Law. Therefore he cites these words that are so often repeated, and that were fo much confidered by the Jews, as containing in them the foundation of God's love to them; that God faid upon many occafions, particularly at his first appearance to Mofes, I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, Ver. 31, 32. and the God of Jacob. Which words imported, not only Exod. iii. 6. that God had been their God, but ftill was their God: now when God is faid to be a God to any, by that is meant, that he is their benefactor, or exceeding rich reward, as was promised to Abraham. And that therefore Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob lived unto God, that is, were not dead; but were then in a happy ftate of life, in which God did reward them, and fo was their God. Whether this argument refts here, our Saviour defigning only to prove, against the main error of the Sadducees, that we have fouls diftinct from our bodies, that fhall outlive their feparation from them; or if it goes further to prove the. rifing of the body itself, I thall not determine. On the one hand our Saviour feems to apply himself particularly to prove the refurrection of the body; fo we must see how to find here an argument for that, to answer the scope of the whole difcourfe: yet on the other hand it may be faid,

K 2

that

VII.

ART. that he having proved the main point of the foul's fubfifting after death, which is the foundation of all religion; the other point, which was chiefly denied, because that was thought falfe, would be more eafily both acknowledged and believed.

As for the refurrection of the body, all that can be brought from hence as an argument to prove it is, that fince God was the God of Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob, and by confequence their benefactor and rewarder, and yet they were pilgrims on this earth, and fuffered many toffings and troubles, that therefore they must be rewarded. in another state; or because God promised that to them he would give the land of Canaan, as well as to their feed after them, and fince they never had any portion of it in their own poffeffion, that therefore they fhall rife again, and with the other faints reign on earth, and have that promife fulfilled in themselves.

From all this the affertion of the Article is as to one main point made good, that the old fathers looked for more than tranfitory promifes: it is alfo clear, that they looked for a further pardon of fin, than that which their law held forth to them in the expiation made by facrifices. Sins of ignorance, or fins of a lower fort, were thofe only for which Sin or Trespass-Offerings were appointed. The Heb. x. 28. fins of a higher order were punifhed by death, by the hand of heaven, or by cutting off; fo that fuch as finned in that kind were to die without mercy: yet when David had fallen into the moft heinous of thofe fins, he Pfal. li. 1, prays to God for a pardon, according to God's loving2, 16, 17. kindnefs, and the multitude of his tender mercies: for he knew that they were beyond the expiation by facrifice. The Prophets do often call the Jews to repent of their idolatry and other crying fins, fuch as oppreffion, injuftice, and murder; with the promife of the pardon of them; even though they were of the deepeft dye, as crimson and fcarlet. Since then for leffer fins an expiation was ap pointed by facrifice, befides their confeffing and repenting of it; and fince it feems, by St. Paul's way of arguing, that they held it for a maxim, that without bedding of blood there was no remiffion of fins; this might naturally lead them to think that there was fome other confideration that was interpofed in order to the pardoning of thofe more heinous fins: for a greater degree of guilt feems by a natural proportion to demand a higher degree of facrifice and expiation. But after all, whatfoever Ifaiah, DaDan. ix. niel, or any other Prophet might have understood or meant by thofe facrificatory phrafes that they use in

Ifa. i. 18.

Ifa. liii.

fpeaking

1