Polpoikilos sophia, a compleat history or survey of all the dispensations and methods of religion, from the beginning of the world to the consummation of all things, as represented in the Old and New Testament shewing the several reasons and designs of those different administrations, and the wisdom and goodness of God in the government of His church, through all the ages of it : in which also, the opinion of Dr. Spencer concerning the Jewish rites and sacrifices is examin'd, and the certainty of the Christian religion demonstrated against the cavils of the Deists, &c. / by John Edwards ...

OF THE Different Dispensations OF RELIGION.

CHAP. I.

The great Advantage of the present Vndertaking. A general Distribution of the Work. The State of Innocence. The Folly of the Praeada∣mitick Opinion. The solemn Consultation of the Sacred Trinity about the making of Man. His Excellency. What God's Image in Man is not. What it is, largely discours'd of. The various Opinions concerning Paradise. It is proved by sundry Arguments that it was in Babylon. An account of its Four Rivers. An Objection fully answered, whereby the Au∣thor's Opinion concerning those Rivers is ex∣plain'd and establish'd. The Employment of our First Parents in Paradise. Besides the Law of Nature, there were these positive Laws in the State of Primitive Integrity: 1. That of Matrimony. 2. That concern∣ing Propagation. 3. Observing the Sabbath, or Seventh Day. It is prov'd that Adam and Eve kept this Day. 4. Abstaining from the Fruit of a certain Tree in the Garden of Eden. An Account of the Tree of Life, and the Tree of Knowledg of Good and Evil. The prohibiting of this latter shew'd in seve∣ral Particulars to be Reasonable and Equitable. 5. The covenant of Works. Not only the first Man and Woman, but all their Race were under this First Dispensation.

THE Task which I undertake at present, is to delineate and display the various Dispensations of Religion, which are recorded in the infallible Writings of the Old and New Testament, and are by that means revealed to us, as well as they were heretofore to the respective Persons and People among whom those▪ Sacred Records were first dispers'd. This certainly is a very deligh••ful Undertaking, for it cannot but be a pleasant Prospect to see all Ages of the World at once, and to behold the vast differences of them at one view. It must needs be very welcome and enter∣taining to have before our Eyes the various States of Religion, to observe the whole Chain of its Affairs throughout the World: And it must be yet more plea∣sing and diverting to behold how it is linked together, to take notice of the excellent Agreement and Harmony of the Universal Scheme of these Administrations which are set before us.

And this ••ight is as profitable as it is ••elightful; for by sailing round this Globe, by encompas••ing this

whole Circle of Religious Dispensations, we shall be a∣ble to make such discoveries as will be of singular use and advantage in our lives: We shall hereby avoid that confusion which too often attends the contemplation of these divine Matters; we shall apprehend aright the ex∣act Order of them in the succession of Times; we shall attain to a right understanding of the Sacred Scriptures of the Old and New Testament where the several Dis∣pensations are mention'd; we shall have an insight into the whole Method and Process of Divine Providence re∣lating to Religion: We shall be convinced of the trans∣cendent Wisdom and Goodness of Heaven in the won∣derful diversity of those Oeconomies which are pre∣sented to our view, especially of the Evangelical one, which is the perfection of all the rest, and was more signally contrived for the welfare and happiness of Mankind.

Neither have we here a view only of what is past and present, but here is represented to us a prospect of what is to come. For the same ••acred and Infallible Records which give us an account of the one, are not deficient in setting before us the other. They acquaint us with the Events and Issues of things which shall be herea••ter; they foretel the Fate of the World till the very last expiring Period of all: So that our utmost Curiosi∣ty as to Futurities may be here fully satisfied. These are the things which I am to offer to the Reader. And because there have been great failures in the handling of these Dispensations, because Authors have not rightly distinguish'd them, but some have made them more, and others fewer than they are; sometimes they have mix'd and confounded those which really differ in them∣selves, and at other times they have made a distinction between such as indeed are the same; I shall therefore use great caution, and be very careful to avoid these mistakes, both in as••igning the general, and the more distinct and particular division or dis••ribution of these Dispensations.

To enter then upon this Task, I assert that the more Catholick and Grand Oeconomies are these three:

• 1. The State of Innocency and Felicity, or Adam created Upright.
• II. The State of Sin and Misery, or Adam Fallen. In this State were our first Parents, till they were reconciled to God: and in this are all their Po∣sterity, till they be made partakers of Grace and Pardon.
• III. The State of Reconciliation, or Adam Recovered. In this State our first Parents were after they were received into favour: And in this all the Faithful are.

Thus Man in Integrity, Man Lapsed, Man Restored, are the three Great Oeconomies. The first of these con∣tinued from the Creation to Man's Fall: The second from Man's Fall to his being recovered: The third reach∣eth from Man's Recovery or Restauration to the end of the World: And consequently this last General Dispen∣sation (which may be called the Dispensation of Grace) is the largest of all, and of the longest continuance.

The first General Dispensation is the State of Inno∣cence, which continued from the Creation of Man till his Apostacy. We must know then that God having made the World, and furnish'd it with all Conveni∣ence, at last made the most excellent and accom∣plish'd piece of the visible Creation, Man. And to Man was added Woman, to be a Companion of his Happiness. As the Divine Being would not be with∣out his Creatures, so neither was it his pleasure that Man should be without the Woman, jointly to enjoy the good things of the Creation, which were made for

that very purpose.* 1.1 It was wisely ordered by the Dei∣ty, saith the Great Philosopher, that there should be these two distinct Sexes for mutual Communion and Society in the World: yea, and I may add, for keeping up the World it self, which would soon have a period if Human Kind ceased. The first Person of this kind was by God himself named Adam, because he was made of Earth. Adam of Adamah; he had this name given him to remind him of his Original. And for this reason Adam was the name given to Woman as well as Man; Gen. 5. 2. He called their name Adam in the day when they were created. For tho the Man was im∣mediately descended of the Earth, yet the Woman, as being taken out of the Man, was remotely so (for it is said, The Rib which the Lord God had taken from Man, made he a Woman, Gen. 2. 22. where without doubt by a Rib are meant the Bone, and the Flesh and Muscles that go along with it; for that is implied in the closing up the flesh in the stead thereof, ver. 21. and we find Bone and Flesh together, ver. 23.) Whence by the way we may take notice of that mistake of a learned Anatomist, the younger Bartholine, that Adam had thirteen Ribs on each side, and that Eve was made out of a pair of these; which is contrary to the express words of the Text, God took one of his Ribs, Gen. 2. 21. and made the Woman of it. Of a single Rib then she was formed; and that Rib, as the rest of Man's Body, being made of Earth, she was but one remove from the Earth, and therefore might have her name from the Earth in common with Man: tho afterwards for ano∣ther reason she was named Eve by her Husband, Gen. 3. 20. and the name Adam became appropriated to him, because he was the true 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that had his first Ori∣ginal

out of the Earth. And there never was any but he, whatever the antient Athenians ••ancied of them∣selves. He was the only Person that had his rise from the Soil he lived on: tho 'tis true in a remote sense we are all Aborigines, as having our extraction from him, and consequently are descended from the Earth.

And here (before we go any further) we may ob∣serve that the ••olly of the Praeadamitick Opinion is de∣tected. The Sacred History of Moses assures us, that Adam and Eve were the ••irst Persons that were created on the Earth; and (lest any should question it) our Saviour hath confirmed it, From the beginning of the Creation God made them Male and Female, Mark 10. 6. For it is undeniable that he speaks this of Adam and Eve, because in the next Verse he alledgeth what was said by God presently after the production of this latter; Therefore shall a Man leave his Father and his Mother, and cleave unto his Wife, Gen. 2. 24. Whence it evidently appears, that the Male and Female here spoken of are Adam and Eve, and that these were made from the beginning of the Creation; therefore there were no Men and Women before them.

This is clear from Gen. 3. 20. Adam called his Wife's name Eve, because she was the Mother of all living. This reason of her Name is assigned by Moses, (for when Adam gave her this Name she was not a Mother) she was so call'd, ••aith he, because she was the Mother of all living; she was the Person that was the Root and Source of all Men and Women that ever are in the World; which plainly intimates that there was no o∣ther Woman that was such ••Mother: She was constitu∣ted, by God's appointment, the only Mother of the living, yea of all living, of human kind, that have been or shall be upon Earth: And consequently there was no Race of Men or Women before her. If there were no other Text to be alledged but this one, it were sufficient to consute the vain Opinion of the Author of

the Praeadamites, who with a great deal of straining and forcing of Texts, endeavours to prove that there was another Generation besides that of Adam and Eve. He tells us there is a Creation of Man and Woman spoken of in the latter end of the first Chapter of Genesis; and another Creation of the Holy Race of Mankind, of which the first Man and Woman were Adam and Eve, spoken of Chap. 2. v. 2, 22. Where∣as the plain, obvious and true Account is, that the first Narrative is general, but the second is particular, that is, it gives a distinct and particular account of the for∣mation of Man and Woman. Notwithstanding this, a late* 1.2 Writer hath revived the Notion of a double Creation, and attempts to prove it as Dyrerius doth. The most considerable Objection that this latter make••, is founded on those Passages which imply a great num∣ber of People in the World at that time, whereas we read (saith he) of none descended from Adam and Eve but Cain, and Abel, and Seth about that time. But who knows not that the Mosaick History is silent as to several things of the like nature, yea of an higher i••∣portance? It is not to be doubted that Adam and Eve had more Children than are expresly mention'd by Moses; yea, that they had a great many Children and Grand children. If we consider this, we shall discover the vanity of the Praeadamitical Conceit, and answer the Cavils that are rais'd about it by the first Author of it, Dyrerius, who indeed at last was sensible of the folly of his Opinion, and (as we are† 1.3 told) re∣canted it.

Besides, to think there was any Man before Adam is groundless, because he is expresly call'd twice by the Apostle the first Man, 1 Cor. 15. 45, 47. It is ridi∣culous

then to imagine that he was not the first of his kind, but that there were Men in the World long be∣fore him, even some thousands of years before him. This Text, and the others before-mention'd, must be removed out of the Bible before we can believe such a thing, or that there are others of human Race besides those that descend from Adam, as some Inhabitants in the Moon, or other Orbs of Heaven, as a1 1.4 late Writer and some others fancy.

The fond Conceit of the Praeadamites being justly rejected, let us proceed.

As the forming of this most excellent Creature Man, was the close of the Creation; so it may be observed that this was peculiar to him, to have a solemn Consul∣tation and Decree about his making, which was not a∣bout any other Creature. God said, Let us make Man, Gen. 1. 26.2 1.5 Philo the Jew is of the opinion, that Angels were Cooperators in framing Adam's Body, and to them God spake when he said, Let us make Man. This Platonist derived this Notion from his3 1.6 Master, who held that lesser and created Gods made Men, and all other Animals, by the command of the greatest and supreme Deity. But others deservedly explode this O∣pinion, and think that these words denote God the Fa∣ther's con••erring with the two other Persons of the Sa∣cred Trinity concerning the making of Man. This is the general Sentiment of the antient Writers of the Church, who usually alledg this place to prove the Doctrin of the Trinity. And certainly it is a considerable place for that purpose. But however (abstracting from this) this way of speaking may signify to us, that the making of Man was an ex••ellent and noble Work, if it were said only after the manner of Men, who hold a Confe∣rence,

and seriously consult, and call in Assistance about a Matter which is of great moment and worth. Thus God is represented speaking after the same gui••e, to ac∣quaint us what a worthy, excellent and transcendent Work this was. I take Seneca's words to be a good Comment on that place;1 1.7 Be it known to you (sai••h he) that Man is not a Work huddled over in haste, and done without forethinking and great consideration; for Man is the greatest and most stupendous Work of God.

Man hath not only a Body in common with all in∣ferior Animals, but into his Body was in••used a Soul, of a far more noble Nature and Make, a rational Prin∣ciple, worthy of the name of a Soul. Hereby he is en∣abled to act according to the designs of his Creation, that is, to contemplate the Works of God, to admire his Perfections, and to worship him, to live as becomes one who received his excellent Being from him, to con∣verse with his fellow Creatures that are of his own Or∣der, to maintain mutual Love and Society, and to serve God in Consort. Man is a wonderful Creature, and not undeservedly said to be a little World, a World within himself, and containing whatever is found in the greater. In him is the spiritual and immaterial Nature of God, the Reasonableness of Angels, the sen∣sitive Power of Brutes, the vegetative Life of Plants, and the Virtues of all the Elements: In brief, he is a compound of all. And hence it is that the Life of Man is difficulter than that of others; for other Creatures are ruled by one single Nature, but Man is made up of divers Qualities. But as it is more difficult, so it is more excellent to be a Man. He hath larger Capa∣cities than other Creatures, and moveth in a wider

Circumference; he holdeth converse with both Worlds, This and That to come.

Thus Man is crowned with Glory and Honour, he is the most remarkable Workmanship of God. Among the greatest things which Nature boasteth of1 1.8, she hath nothing that she can glory in more than in Man. 2 1.9 Man is a great Miracle, a Creature worthy of th•• highest respect and honour. He is that3 1.10 great and admirable Animal which is more precious to God than all other created Beings whatsoever, and for which the Heaven, the Earth, and the Sea, and the rest of the World was made. Accordingly he was in a more signal eminent manner framed by God, and f••rmed by the Advice of the Sacred Trinity, yea (which is yet more wonder∣ful) according to the similitude and resemblance of it; ••or so we read in Gen. 1. 26. Let us make Man in our Image, after our Likeness. Some quaintly distinguish between Image and Likeness, following herein St. Au∣gustin in his Retractations, and after him Peter Lombard and other Schoolmen. But waving those Subtilties, I will endeavour to shew you wherein the Image or Simi∣litude (for I take them to be both one) of God in Man consisteth. Negatively;

1. Origen's Opinion concerning this Image is not to be imbraced: for he saith here is meant the Image and Likeness of the Son of God, who is the express Image of the Person of the Father, Heb. 1. 3. But besides that the words in the Hebrew, and this (for it is but4 1.11 one) in the Greek do not exactly answer, it is to be observed

first, that it is said in the Plural, Let us make Man after our Image, and consequently it is not restrained to the I∣mage of the Second Person of the Trinity only: therefore there is no reason that we should restrain it. Again, when afterwards 'tis spoken in the Singular, yet 'tis spoken ge∣nerally of the Godhead; as in the Verse following, God created Man in his own Image, in the Image of God created he him. Still here is no restriction, and there∣fore we cannot say it is to be understood only of the I∣mage of the Second Person in the glorious Trinity.

2.1 1.12 Philo the Iew, and some of the Fathers that were Pla••onically dispos'd, understood this Image of the Idea, according to which God made all things, and par∣ticularly Man. For there were (say they) Eternal Ima∣ges and Exemplars of things in God's mind, there were Universal Natures of all things, certain Archetypes and Patterns, by looking on which God framed all things; as an Artificer being to build a House, first delineateth in his own mind the whole Frame and Scheme of the fu∣ture Building, and by this he afterwards proceeds in erecting the Fabrick.

God's Idea, saith2 1.13 Philo, is the Image by which Adam was made; and so Man was the fairest Pourtraiture of the fairest Image, a Copy of the Divine Original.

And3 1.14 Iustin the Mar∣tyr (who had been educated in the Platonick Philoso∣phy) followeth this Notion, asserting that the Image of God according to which Adam was made, was the Exemplar of Man in the mind of God. And4 1.15 Cle∣mens Alexandrinus is of the same judgment, and inter∣prets the Text in the same manner.

Now in answer to this I will only say, that the No∣tion of Ideas, as it is generally meant by the Platonists, is fond and precarious, and some of their own Tribe have no great kindness for it. But if the Notion of the Divine Idea be soberly understood, viz. that from E∣ternity there were in the Mind of God Images of all things which were afterward to be made, and parti∣cularly of Man; I see nothing amiss in this Assertion, yea 〈◊〉〈◊〉 take it to be a very sound and orthodox Notion, and such as is of great use in Divinity, it being the Foundation of all Truth, as I shall shew in another place, and it being the Basis on which the Doctrin of the Divine Decrees is establish'd. But this then is no∣thing to our pre••ent purpose, for God's making of Man after his Image is meant in the forecited place of some singular and peculiar thing. Neither Beasts, nor Fishes, nor Birds, nor Plants, nor any visible Being in the whole Creation mention'd in that Chapter, are said to be made after God's Image or Likeness. We read that Man alone was created in the Divine Image; as much as to say, no other Creature whatsoever on Earth re∣sembleth God but Man. Therefore it is evident that these words cannot be understood of the Idea according to which God made all things, for according to that he made Beasts as well as Men, and then we might have expected to read in Genesis, not only Let us make Man, but let us make Beasts and all other Creatures in our Image, after our Likeness.

3. The Anthropomorphites held this Image was in the Body of Man, because they conceived that God had a Body; and so they dreamt that the Shape and Figure of human Bodies answer to the same Lineaments and Proportions in God. But I need not stand to con••ute so blasphemous and1 1.16 cursed an Opinion. I know

1 1.17 some would mitigate it by saying, that man was made after the Image of Christ who was to come in the Flesh, and was to have bodily Parts. But this hath no rela∣tion to the Anthropomorphites Doctrin, and consequently can be no mitigation of it. Besides, it is contrary to the words themselves, which speak not of the Image of Christ, either as God or Man, but of the Godhead in general.

Positively then, the Image of God wherein Man was created was something in his Soul chiefly, something in his outward Man, and it also consisted in his D••minion over the Creatures.

1. In the Soul of Man is God's Image or Likeness placed. For this part of us is of an immaterial and spiritual Nature; and such is God, he is a Spirit, John 4. 24. Again, the Soul of Man is immortal, and therein is God's Image and Representation. This in∣deed follows upon the former Quality; it being imma∣terial and incorporeal, it must needs be in its own Na∣ture incorruptible. Herein we signally resemble the De∣ity, and therefore it is rightly asserted by St. Augustin, that because of the immortality of the Soul (tho not only for that) Man is said to be made according to God's Image. Moreover, the Soul of Man is of a rational and intelligent Nature, and therein also is like unto God. There was no visible or sublunary Creature before Adam that was of this kind: therefore, saith God, Let us make Man after our Image, let us frame a terrestrial Crea∣ture with a reasonable Soul, with an immortal and imma∣terial Nature, which are Resemblances of the Divinity it self: Let us make him capable of conceiving things aright, of arguing and discoursing, and of making in∣ferences and deductions from things, which no Brutes are able to do. Let us furnish him with all Divine

Knowledg, that he may be able to apprehend the things of God, and have an insight into the most sublime and heavenly Truths, and by this means also partake of the Divine Nature and Likeness.

That this Knowledg and Wisdom are part of the Di∣vine Image, is clear from the Apostle's words in Col. 3. 10. where he acquaints us, that the new Man is renewed in Knowledg, after the Image of him that created him. Whence it is rationally to be inferr'd, that God's Image partly consisted in Knowledg and Vnderstanding.1 1.18 Socinus and2 1.19 Smalcius had a very low opinion of the first Man when they asserted that at his being first made, he had no more understanding than a stupid Infant, yea, that Adam was next to a Fool. But may not these Writers be thought to be next to something of that Nature, when they assert a thing so unreasonable and absurd, so wild and extravagant? I do not say that Adam was sub∣til and scholastical in his Notions, that he had any skill in the quirks of Wit and Logick. I believe Scotus would have baffled him, a knotty Schoolman would have put him to a nonplus; and it would quite have puzzl'd and amus'd his Brain to have reduc'd a Syllogism in Bocardo. For these Subtilties were not the accomplishments of In∣nocence, and the early attendents of the Spade and Plough. No; these are the Consequents of Apostacy, the Crutches of lame Reason, and Supporters of lapsed Understanding, the Salvo's of Ignorance, and some∣times the greatest increasers of it. Therefore I do not think that Adam's intellectual Happiness consisted in these, but in that which was solid and useful.

What Man of sense and sober thoughts can deny that God indued Adam with a quick Understanding, upon considering this one thing, viz. that he gave Names to

every living creature, Gen. 2. 19. and it may be (tho it is not recorded) to the Plants and all Vegeta∣bles on Earth, yea, even to the Stars in Heaven, (tho the Names of them are now lost) yea, to all things above and below, which were useful and common in the Life of Man? And those Names then did express and signify the very Nature and Properties of the things, whereas now they are generally ex instituto, merely from custom and the arbitrary will of Men. He that was able thus to give Names to all Creatures according to their Natures, was no Fool or Sot certainly. This was the great Plato's judgment, who tells us it was no ordinary and mean thing, it was not the work of a vulgar Person to impose Names on things: yea, he that did it at first, 1 1.20 was master of more than human wisdom and skill. It is reasonable to believe that Adam was a great natural Phi∣losopher, had knowledg of all those Creatures which he named; else he could not have fitted Names to them. And that he did so, is evident from comparing the 19th Verse of the forementioned Chapter, with the 22d and 23d Verses. In the former 'tis said, that the Lord God formed every living Creature out of the ground, and brought them to Adam, to see what he would call them; and whatsoever he call'd them that was the Name thereof. In the latter 'tis said, The Rib which the Lord God had taken from Man, made he a Woman, and brought her unto the Man. And Adam said, She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. You see the parallel, the brute Creatures were brough by God to Adam, on purpose that he should bestow Names on them: So was Eve brought to him, that she should have a Name given her by him. Adam gave proper and sig∣nificant Names to the other Creatures; and so he did to

the Woman. We gather the former from the latter. We find that when God brought the Woman to the Man, he fastned a Name on her sutable to her Nature and Ori∣ginal: therefore 'tis reasonably to be concluded, that when the other Creatures of an inferior rank were brought by God to Adam, he con••er'd such Names on them as were most expressive of their different Proper∣ties and Qualities.

As God had given Adam his Name which was sig∣nificant, so Adam gave other Creatures Names which carried significancy with them. This argues his Intel∣lectuals to have been very acute and profound, other∣wise he could not have perceived the several Signatures and Properties of those Animals which were brought before him. It is not to be question'd then, that he had an insight into the true Nature of all Beings, and was one of unspeakable Sagacity. In fine, whatever some Rabbies extravagantly assert on the one hand concerning the prodigious transcendency of Adam's knowledg, and how meanly soever some of Pelagius and Socinus's Fol∣lowers on the other hand speak of his Endowments, it is a sober Truth that our First Parents were very knowing Persons. It is not to be doubted that they had especially a perfect knowledg of Divine Truth, from whence all Virtue and Holiness spring.

Which reminds me of another Quality of Man's Soul in the first Creation, viz. its Righteousness or Holiness. For God endued it, not only with Under∣standing, but with a Will, which he adorned with Di∣vine Graces; and in these also consisteth the Image of God, as we are ascertain'd by an inspired and infalli∣ble Writer, who tells us, that the new Man is created after God (i. e. after the Image and Likeness of God) in Righteousness and true Holiness, Ephes. 4. 24. These give us the perfect resemblance of our Maker, and im∣print upon us the Divine and heavenly Image. For these are principally placed in the Will, in the elective Faculty

of Man, that noblest part of his Soul, that1 1.21 Sovereign and Ruling Faculty of the mind. Thus I have shew'd how the Soul of Man is justly said to be God's Image and Likeness, namely as it is a Spiritual, Immortal, and Intelligent Being; but chiefly as 'tis capable of Religi∣on, and is indu'd with Divine Virtues and Graces. By these it is that Man most of all resembles God, and is truly bless'd and happy, and is, as 'twere, another God. Princes stamp their Image on their Coin: That which is choicest and most precious, beareth their Effigies. And so here the exactest Lineaments of the Divine Image are to be seen impress'd on this choice Part of Man, which is the Seat of true Grace and Goodness. God, who is the chief Pulchritude, would draw his own beautiful Image on the Soul, that That on Earth might be a kind of Representative of Himself, and a Pourtray of his own Divine Perfections.

2. Tho the Image of God in which Man was made, be seated chiefly in the rational Soul of Man, yet it is imprinted also on his Body, as2 1.22 Ireneus and some other Fathers have rightly asserted.3 1.23 Not that the Body can resemble God, as if God were of human Shape: This we exploded before as absurd and ridiculous. But the Image of God was on the Body of the first Man, first, as it was extraordinarily fair, comely and beautiful. It is true, Adam's Body was made of Earth; but this Earth was marvelously refined and purified. And this is implied, if not express'd, in Adam's Name, and in the word which is used in the Original for the EARTH out of which he was taken. For the import of the He∣brew Verb Adam (whence is the Noun Adamah) is not

only rubuit, he was red or ruddy, (and so Adam is as much as Edom, rufus, which was Esau's Name, be∣cause he was ruddy when he was born, Gen. 25. 25.) but it is of a larger signification, and is as much as splenduit. That it bears this sense, may be gathered from the word Adamdameth, Levit. 13. 19. where it must be rendred shining or glistering, or else the same thing there spoken of must be very white and very red, as Bochart hath noted, Hieroz. P. 2. l. 5. c. 6. Some∣times Adam is as much as formosus fuit. Thus of the temperate and healthful Nazarites it is said, Lam. 4. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they were ruddy, i. e. they were fair; whence Arias Montanus renders it nitidi fuere. And so the word Admoni (which comes from the Verb Adam) is taken in this sense, as in 1 Sam. 16. 12. where 'tis said of David, that he was ruddy, i. e. beautiful, as is ex∣plain'd in the following words. Thus Edom, of the very same extraction, is understood in Cant. 5. 10. where the Spouse saith of her Beloved, that he is ruddy, i. e. he is comely, he is one of a beautiful Aspect.

And I could here add, that the Verb Adam in other Languages bears this meaning; thus1 1.24 Bochart acquaints us, that in Arabick it is as much as splendere: And by 2 1.25 Ludolphus we are ascertain'd that in Ethiopick it signi∣fies formosum, pulchrum esse. In the Latin I could ob∣serve something like this, for rutilare in its more gene∣ral signification is splendidum esse. So purpureus is the same with splendidus, pulcher; whence3 1.26 purpureus ca∣pillus, and4 1.27 purpurei olores. I know no Oriental word that comes so near to this as Chur, which is both albus fuit and erubuit. And the reason I conceive is this, both these colours, white and red, have a great deal of light

mixed with them; therefore the signification of them is alike, and they both of them denote that which is fair and bright.

And as it is thus with the Hebrew Verb Adam, so proportionably the Substantive Adamah doth not only signify red Earth (as if it were so called from its red Colour, because it is said, that that was the native hew of the Earth in the East Country: And1 1.28 Iosephus the learned Iew, speaking of Adam's Make, relates, that the natural Mould call'd Virgin-Earth, is of a red or yellow Complexion. So we have a small2 1.29 County in England that carries Red Earth in its Name, because the Soil is generally reddish) but the word is of a lar∣ger extent, and signifies that Earth which is bright and shining, and is of the best and purest sort. So that when it is said that Adam was form'd out of Adamah, there is meant by this word, that Earth which was of the purest and finest Composition. And to this purpose it may be further observ'd, that whereas other Animals are said to be made out of aretz, common Earth, Gen. 1. 24, 25. it is particularly recorded, that the first Man was made out of Adamah, a peculiar and choice sort of Ground, (ex meli••re luto, as the Poet speaking of this very thing fitly expresses it) yea, out of the dust of this ground, Gen. 2. 7. i. e. the finest and most agile part of it. All which is an eviction of what I at first asserted concerning the Materials of Adam's Body. This was the true Terra Sigillata, this was the Earth which God set his Mark and Image on, that it might be known whose it was. Adam in his Body, as well as in his Soul, outvied all his Race.

I attend not to the prodigious Stories which some fanciful Rabbies and Talmudick Doctors tell us of the

strange Beauty and Elegancy, and of the vast Proporti∣ons of Adam's Body. Rabbi1 1.30 Solomon Iarchi avers that Adam was so tall, that standing on the Earth he could touch the Heavens with his hand. And several other such romantick Passages in the Writings of these fond Men, I disregard; (nay, those that are sober among themselves give no credit to it, but understand it in a mystical manner, for2 1.31 some of them tell us, that when it is said, Adam's Stature reached from one end of the Earth to the other, it is to be understood of the Perfection of his Mind, that he knew and comprehended the Nature of all things contained in the World) but it is certain, that as Adam's Soul was made a Transcript of God him∣self, so his Body was framed in a most exquisite man∣ner, and the Divine Art and Skill were wonderfully dis∣covered in the shaping of it. For as Philo saith,3 1.32 We are begot of Men, but God himself made Adam. The Au∣thor being better, the Work must be more excellent. Yea, this must be said, that all of us, having been in Adam's Loins, are part of that excellent Workmanship, and have the same Image stamped upon us that Adam had. We are all marked and sealed by the Divine Hand; his own Impression and Signature are upon us, even up∣on our corporeal part, tho 'tis true it was much defac'd by the Primitive Aopstacy.

Secondly, The Body of Adam was God's I∣mage as it was made Immortal. He was created in full Strength, and as a Person of4 1.33 a just Age, health∣ful, sound and flourishing. For his Body was not like those of Beasts, weak and corruptible, but was made to be of perpetual Duration, obnoxious to

no Decays, Diseases or Changes. If Man had stood en∣tire, and kept his Innocence, this had been his condi∣tion. But this Image was restored to him and us who are his Posterity; and not only our Souls but Bodies shall everlastingly subsist. Thus by their Immortality and eternal Continuance, they partake in some measure of the Divine Nature and Likeness.

Thirdly, In the Body of Man, as well as in his Soul, the Image of God consisteth, because the Soul worketh on the Body, and by it. Hence the Members of the Bo∣dy are said to be Instruments of Righteousness, Rom. 6. 13. As they are instrumental to so excellent a purpose, as they are subservient to Grace and Holiness, and as the Virtues of the Holy Spirit are exerted by them, they are part of the Image of God. For it is not to be questioned, that the whole Man is God's Image. There∣fore tho the Divine Likeness doth not equally shine in all Parts, yet this corporeal Part of Man in some de∣gree, shareth in that Image. For which reason the Bo∣dies of good Men are stiled the Temples of the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor. 6. 19.

Fourthly, God's Image is on the Body of Man, as it is of that particular erect Figure, which no living Crea∣ture else partaketh of. Aristotle was so much a Divine as to apprehend and acknowledg this. Man only (saith he)5 1.34 of all the Animals was made upright, because his Nature and Substance are Divine. For this particular Figure represented the inward Uprightness and Recti∣tude which he was created in. The Frame of the Body was to signify the Quality of the Soul. The outward Man was made an Hieroglyphick of the inward Tem∣per and Disposition of the Mind. Again, this erect Shape represented the Sovere••gnty and Power of Man

over all other Animals. For being not made in that low and groveling posture which these are in, it is a sign he was to be distinguish'd from them, and to be made a Ruler over them. Which brings me to the next thing I propounded.

3. God's Image in Man consisteth in his Dominion over the Creatures. Observe therefore, that when God had said, Let us make Man in our Image, after our Likeness, it immediately follows, Let him have domi∣nion over the Fish of the Sea, and over the Fowl of the Air, &c. So God created Man in his own Image, Gen. 1. 26, 27. Which intimates to us (as St. Basil, St. Chrysostom, and other Fathers agree on that place) that Man's Dominion over the Creatures was the Image and Representation of God's Principality and Soveraignty. God constituted him Lord of the Earth, and Gover∣nour over all things in it; he made him Prince of the whole Creation, Universal Lord and Emperor, and there is nothing but is made subject to him. Which David sets forth thus in Psal. 8. 6, 7, 8. Thou madest him to have Dominion over the Works of thy Hands, thou hast put all things under his feet: All Sheep and Oxen, yea, and the Beasts of the Field, (i. e. Beasts which are untamed and wild) the Fowl of the Air, and the Fish of the Sea, and whatsoever passeth through the Paths of the Sea. Here is part of God's Image and Likeness. And this Power which Adam had over all Animals was exerted and manifested afterwards in a very visible and notable Instance, viz. when he call••d them all together, and gave Names to them.6 1.35 The Lord God brought them to him, by giving him this Power to summon them, and to cause them to appear before him at his pleasure. And when they were come. Adam strook a terror into the fiercest of them. At the

sight of him they stood astonished; the wildest of them (for some may be said, in comparison of others, to be wild) grew tame and gentle, and adored him as their Lord and Ruler.

There is seated in the Nature of Man (faith7 1.36 Cornelius Agrippa) a certain Power of Dominion from that dread which he is able to strike into other Creatures. This remains in Man at this day, and he might exert it if he knew how to make use of it. There is a certain Terrifick Character impress'd on Man by the Creator, by which all Creatures stand in aw of him as the Image of his Creator. If a Man could exercise this Power aright, he might work Wonders in the World:

So he. But the Power which Adam had over the Creatures was discover'd, not only in making them appear, and stand submissive before him, but also in his giving of Names to them.

The Imposition of Names (saith8 1.37 a learned Father) was a Token of his Au∣thority and Dominion over the Creatures, as when Men buy Servants, they change their Names and give them new ones; this shews that they are Lords over them.

And there is something of this perhaps in Adam's giving the Woman her Name. She shall be cal∣led Woman, saith he; which may imply his Primitive Power and Authority over her.

But tho I propound this only as probable, yet the o∣ther is past all doubt, viz. that Man had and hath an Empire over the in••erior Creatures; and herein the I∣mage of God partly consisteth. Chrysost••m (as I have said) imbraceth this Opinion, but therein is mistaken, that the Image of God in Man is9 1.38 nothing else but this Dominion. And he would prove it from 1 Cor. 11. 7.

where the Apostle, speaking of the behaviour of Christi∣ans in the Assemblies, saith, The Man must be unco∣vered on his head, because he is the Image and Glory of God. Uncovering was a sign of Liberty and Domini∣on; so that the Image of God in Man is that Dominion and Superiority which God hath given him over the Woman and all things else. This is but poor proof, and not worth the refuting: Besides that, according to this Father, the Image of God is peculiar to Man, and the other Six is wholly excluded. Which sheweth this to be a fanciful and groundless Opinion: for Man and Woman are both of the same Nature in the conside∣rations of Religion, and with respect to so great and important a thing as the Divine Image is. This Opi∣nion, that God's Image consists wholly or chiefly in Man's Soveraignty over the Creatures, is espoused by the Socinians, and strongly maintain'd by them. You will find1 1.39 Socinus himself, and2 1.40 Volkelius, and3 1.41 others, as∣serting, in express terms, that the Image of God is placed solely or principally in Dominion. But tho this be apparently false, and asserted by those Men only to uphold a belov'd Doctrin of theirs, yet there is reason to believe that that Power over the rest of the Creatures which God invested Man with, is part of the Divine Image. Man doth eminently resemble God in this Prerogative. In his presiding and ruling over them he is a lively representation of him who is the King and Ruler of all.

Thus you see this Image of God in Man is a complex thing. It is not only in the Soul, or in the Body, or in Power and Dominion, but it is in all of them toge∣ther; in opposition to those different Parties who place

it in one of them singly, as4 1.42 Origen and5 1.43 The••doret in perfect Knowledg and Wisdom,6 1.44 Clement of Alexan∣dria in perfect Holines, Chrysostom (as you have heard) and7 1.45 Cyril of Alexandria in Dominion over the Crea∣tures; and maugre the wild Opinion of another8 1.46 an∣tient Writer, who holds this Image of God is neither in Man's Body nor Soul, nor in any thing else that is known to us: it is not, it cannot be determin'd in what it consisteth.

Soon after Adam and Eve were made by God, and thus adorned with his Image, they were placed in the Garden of Eden, (Gen. 2. 8.) i. e. a Garden of De∣light or Pleasure, for so much the9 1.47 Hebr••w word de∣noteth. Paradise is the word used by the Septuagint, and is of1 1.48 Hebrew (some say of Persian) original, and signifieth a place inclosed for Pleasure and Delight; whether it be a2 1.49 Park where Beasts do range, or a spot of Ground stock'd with choice Plants, which is properly a3 1.50 Garden, or curiously set with Trees yielding all man∣ner of Fruits, which is an4 1.51 Orchard. And the word is here fitly applied to the pleasant Plantation wherein our first Parents were placed by God. This was not on∣ly a delightful Garden, and a fruitful Orchard, washed with convenient Rivers, (as you shall hear afterwards) but a spacious Park or Forest, where all the Beasts met together, as you have heard already.

Concerning this place there have been different Opi∣nions; yet, it hath been questioned whether it was a Place or no, and when it had its beginning. Paradise was made before the Heavens and the Earth, say some of the Iewish Doctors. And5 1.52 St. Ierom, who was a great admirer of Theodotion and Symmachus, Heretical Iews, and averse to the Translation of the Septuagint, follows them in that Opinion. Some held that Paradise was not Local, but that it was a State rather than a Place; and that this State was not on Earth. This was the high-flown Notion of Philo and Origen, of Basil, Ambrose and Damascen, and sometimes of Ierom, who under∣stood Paradise in a spiritual and mystical Sense, and con∣ceived it to be meant only of some blessed and happy Condition. Some of them seem to refer it to Heaven, others to the Virtues of the Soul, or the Soul's chief and principal Faculties: Tho St. Ierom on Daniel laughs at those who think Rivers, and Trees, and Paradise it self to be Allegories; which is a sign he chang'd his Opi∣nion. And this is not to be marvelled at, for he is not wont to approve of that mystical Strain, and to alle∣gorize after that high rate, which is the way to make void all Scripture-History, and by that to null the whole Bible. Therefore we find that the6 1.53 Manichees were condemned of old for allegorizing of Paradise: And we read* 1.54 that it was part of the H••resy of the Seleucia∣ni and Hermiani, that they denied a visible Paradise. This Opinion hath been revived by some Moderns, and very lately by7 1.55 one, who makes the History of Moses concerning the Terrestrial Paradise (as well as he doth other parts of it) a mere Fable, at least a Parable.

That is the result of his disquisition about it. St.* 1.56 Au∣gustin goes in a middle way, and holds Paradise to be partly Local and Corporeal, and partly Spiritual. Ephra∣im Syrus grants Paradise to be Local, but placeth it an other World beyond this. It is a place above the whole Creation, saith an1 1.57 Other: It is seated in the Third Heaven by St. Ambrose. Some make it to be the Coelum Empyreum.2 1.58 Others say the Moon was the Paradise wherin our first Parents were created, and from whence they were thrust down to this Earth. Bede and Rabanus Maurus will have it be near the Orb of the Moon.3 1.59 One of the ••ewish Doctors comes pretty near this, and tells us that Paradise is about the second Region of the Air, and hangs between Heaven and Earth. It was the whol•• Earth, say Beca••us and Noviamagus. Some of old held that it was the whole World, as4 1.60 re∣lates. And Luther of late held the same, asserting that the whole World was call'd Paradise, because it was at first so delightful and pleasant.

Others (and with good reason) assert it to be a par•• only of this lower World, or the Earth; but they a∣gree not about the particular Place: For some tell us it is seated in an unknown Country, remote from the company of the Wicked, where En••ch and Elias inha∣bit. So Bellarmine thinks, D•• Grat. primi hominis, cap. 14. And some of that Church follow him, and they derive it from some of the Antients, who had it from Papias. Others assign a known part of the Earth, but among these there is also a difference; some ground∣lesly placing it in Africa, and in the warmest part there. Thus Maimonides, Aben Ezra, and other Iew∣ish

Doctors hold it was seated under the Equinoctial. And Durandus and Bonaventure among the Schoolmen are of that Judgment. Others fancy it to be in Ame∣rica, and in the warmest Country there; for these Men think the Torrid Zone to be the most comfortable part of the World. But those most certainly are in the right who place it in Asia. There is5 1.61 one Man who is singular in imagining Paradise to have been in that part of Asia which is called Palestine, near Iordan in the Land of Sodom; which he gathers from Gen. 13. 10. But any one may see that no such thing can be inferr'd from those words, which only intimate, that the Plain of Iordan where Sodom stood, was a very pleasant and delightful place, and might in some respect be compared with Paradise. But after all the rambling Conjectures and wild Fancies concerning Paradise, and the particu∣lar place where it was, this is to be imbraced as the most probable and accountable Truth, that it was situated on those most pleasant and fruitful Fields of Asia, which of old were called Babylon, and afterwards Mesopotamia. In the lower part of this Mesopotamia, taking in also a part of Shinar and Armenia, was this Garden of Eden planted, as a6 1.62 learned Knight hath excellently shew'd. In the Map you may observe it stands 35 degrees from the Equinoctial, and 55 from the Northern Pole. Be∣cause Paradise (being of a very great extent) reach'd towards Armenia, Galtruchius placeth it in the Moun∣tains of Armenia the Greater; especially the Mountain Paiarde (saith he) was Paradise. But herein this learned Man was mistaken: for it is evident that Para∣dise was in Babylon, because Eden was there; as that worthy Knight hath proved from If a. 37. 12. and Ezek. 27. 23. by shewing where those other Countries

are found which are joined with Eden. By many Argu∣ments he makes it clear that Eden was part of Babylonia, and Babylonia a part of Mesopotamia. Or rather I am inclined to determin thus, (which doth not alter the main thing, but only gives you a more distinct account of it) Eden, and Babylon, and Mesopotamia, were three Names of the same Country. Eden was the first and antientest: Babylon was the Name it was call'd by afterwards, and Mesopotamia is a Greek Name given to it, and signifieth that it stood in the midst of Rivers; especially it referreth to its being situated between those two Rivers, Tigris and Euphrates, tho I know there is a stricter acceptation (and that not uncommon) of Mesopotamia.

And so you find this place described in Genesis, as famous for its Rivers, Gen. 2. 10. A River went out of Eden to water the Garden, and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads: i. e. the principal River of Paradise had four great Channels. The name of the first is Pison; that is it which compasseth the whole Land of Havilah, vers. 11. This Pison is call'd by some Phasis, or Phasitigris; it runs (they say) by that Havilah whither the Amalekites fled, 1 Sam. 15. 7. and divides it from the Country of Susiana, and at last falls into the Persian Gulf. So Galtruchius is positive that Armenia the Greater, and the Coutries thereabout are meant by Havilah, and that the River Phasis in that Armenia is the same with Moses's Pison. Str••bo places Havilah in the Borders of Arabia and Mesop••tamia: And Bochart thinks it is Arabia it self. But (so far as I can judg) there is no reason to recede from the old Opinion of the Christian Writers, who hold that Havi∣lah is India, and Pison the River Ganges. This was first asserted by1 1.63 Iosephus, and from him Eusebius, Ie∣rom,

and most of the Fathers receiv'd it. And not without good reason, for Moses here adds, as a Mark to know the place by, that there is Gold, and the Gold of that Land is good, ver. 11. Now it is confes'd by all, that India is the most noted for Gold, and that of the best sort. Further it is added, as a Note whereby to discover that place, that there is Bdellium and the Onyx Stone. There is some dispute about the former; some hold it to be a Tree or a Resinous Gum, but most think it a precious Stone or a Pearl: And this is pro∣bable, it being join'd with the Onyx Stone: And India is famous for precious Stones and Pearls.

The name of the second River is Gihon, vers. 13. Galtruchius holds that the River Araxes in Armenia the Greater is meant by Gihon; this as well as Phasis flow∣ing from the Mountain Payarde there. But Moses adding in this Verse, that the River Gihon is the same that compasseth the whole Land of Ethiopia, (or Cush, as it is in the Original) there is reason to believe that this Gihon is the River Nile, as the forenamed Iewish Anti∣quary, and most of the antient Writers of the Church hold. Which may be confirmed by what you may take notice of in the forenamed place, where the Gar∣den of the Lord, and the Land of Egygt are join'd to∣ther, intimating that Paradise, by the help of the Ri∣ver Nile, did as 'twere border upon Egypt, which is the principal part of the African Ethiopia, which it is most probable is meant here.

The name of the third River is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the East of Assyria, ver. 14. That it was a River belonging to Babylon, is clear from Dan. 10. 4. This is generally concluded to be the River Ti∣gris, which divides Mesopotamia from Assyria, and therefore runs toward the East of it. This commonly goeth along with Euphrates, and so it doth here; for we are told, ver. 14. that the fourth River (which is∣sued out of Paradise) was Euphrates▪

The fourth River, or the fourth Channel of the great River Euphrates, is, by way of eminence, here called Euphrates, this being the great middle Channel that ran thro Eden or Babylon; and it may be thought to take its name from its fructifying quality. For what some have thought, viz. that the word is deriv'd from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 l••tificare; and that in allusion to this it is call'd the River whose Streams make glad the City of God, Psal. 46. 4. it hath little foundation; seeing there is a great probability that its Original is from the Hebrew Perah, which is the world here and in all other places of the Bible for this River, and is from parah crescere, fructificare, because the Country own'd its fertility and fruitfulness of the spreading streams of this River. But how is Euphrates deriv'd from Perah? It is likely that the Greeks made it out of these two words in this Verse, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hu P••rath, Perath it self; for they read it1 1.64 Vphrath, and added a Termination of their own, and thence came Euphrates. Nor is it an unusual thing with the Grecians to borrow words from the He∣brew. I will at present instance only in another word which hath relation to the matter in hand, and that is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is used by several Gentile Writers for a Garden or Orchard, and it is the corruption of the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 pardes, hortus: it is this word transmuted into a Greek form.

These are the Rivers of Paradise mention'd by Moses, of which that Noble Author of the History of the World hath copiously discours'd, and those that are curious may find satisfaction to their Scruples about this matter. We are to think this (and it is a very rational thought) that Paradise is now scarce to be found; because after so ma∣ny Changes, especially that made by the Deluge, which marr'd the Figure of it, and wash'd away a great deal

of its Beauty, it is exceedingly alter'd. Wherefore we must not expect to find in Historians and Geographers the same description of Paradise which Moses gives. Herodotus and Pliny will tell you, that Euphrates hath not the same Channel it had in the Ages of old, it hath several times been put out of its way. And if in so long a time the course of Rivers be changed, the Re∣gion may be alter'd as to other things. Besides, the names of Pison and Gihon, two Branches of the River of Paradise, are not very well known to us, because they are not the Names that they are call'd by in pro∣fane Authors; for 'tis common in Scripture to use the names of Places (as well as of Men sometimes) which are not used in other Writers. Or, this may be as truly said, that some names of Rivers mention'd by Moses, are long since lost and extinct (as the antient names of several Countries are, which is acknowledg'd by all the Learned. After so many Generations, and changings of Languages, it is no wonder that they are not call'd after the same manner that they once were. But we cannot gather thence that they are not in being; we cannot say (with a late1 1.65 Writer) that of the four An∣tient Rivers of Paradise two remain, but the other two do not. But this may, and ought to be said, that the al∣tering of the Primitive Names renders it difficult to as∣sign the more particular place of Paradise, and to tell exactly where it was. But from the Account given us in Genesis, and by comparing all things together, there is reason to assert that Paradise was in Babylon, that noted part of the World.

For first Moses acquaints us, that God planted a Gar∣den eastward in Eden, Gen. 2. 8. Which agrees well with that Region of Assyria which it is certain was situ∣ate eastward in Asia; besides, that it lay eastward from

Canaan, or the Deserts of the Amorites where Moses wrote. Again, from what you read of this place call'd Eden, in 2 King. 19. 12. and Amos 1. 5. (besides those other Texts before mention'd, which Sir W. R••∣leigh takes notice of, and comments upon) you may gather that this Country was the place where Paradise was seated. Next, no part of the whole Earth bids so fair for the Seat of Paradise as that, for all the Antient Historians agree in this, that that Region was the plea∣santest in the whole World, and that the Soil of it was prodigiously fertile, and almost fruitful to a Miracle. Moreover, Paradise was a place remarkable for its Ri∣vers; and such is that Country represented by all to be, and particularly it is famous for the great and noted Ri∣ver Euphrates.

But if it shall be objected, that it is improbable Para∣dise was washed with all these four Rivers, viz. Euphra∣tes, Tigris, Ganges, and Nile; for then it must needs be almost as large as a third part of half the Globe: Espe∣cially as to Pison and Gihon, how can we hold that the former is Ganges, and the latter Nile? for then we must take in almost all Asia, and a great part of Africa into Paradise. Therefore this Notion concerning the Rivers of Paradise is very extravagant, and consequently must not look for any reception.

I answer, 1. It is not so extravagant to make a quar∣ter of half the Earth Paradisiacal, as to hold that it was all of it so at first, which yet we find vouched of late.

But, 2. it is a gross mistake in the Objectors to think, that what I have said enlarges Paradise to that wideness which they mention; for when we speak of the Rivers belonging to this place, this must be remem∣bred, that the Heads and Springs of them are meant, not the whole body and current of them. For you read but of a River (Gen. 2. 10.) i. e. one River; but this one River was parted (as you read in the same Verse) into four Branches, or (if you will) into four Rivers,

viz. without Paradise, not within it. The one River was in Paradise, and was serviceable to water it, whilst these Arms and Branches of it spread themselves to a vast distance, even on one hand to some Regions of Africa, and further yet on the other hand to some re∣mote parts of India. Here is nothing extravagant in this Assertion, and consequently Nile and Ganges might, and certainly did descend from the capital River of Eden. The River Pison is said to compass the whole Land of Havilah, and Gihon is said to compass the whole Land of Ethiopia; that is, the Waters of these Springs or Fountain-heads which had their rise in Paradise, flow'd as far as Havilah in India, and Ethiopia in Africk, and encompass'd these places with their various turnings and windings. Moses tells us what Regions of the World these derivative Streams and Branches (which in broad Channels made very considerable Ri∣vers) reach'd to: But we cannot conclude thence that Paradise it self was extended so far. This, I think, is very plain and intelligible, and no Man of sense can op∣pose it; and therefore there is no cause for that outcry which is made against Ganges and Nile's being two of the Rivers mention'd in Gen. 2. Notwithstanding what some late1 1.66 Writers have ingeniously offer'd, I think the old Opinion is the most probable, or at least I take it to have as much probability in it as any of the Modern ones. And so any unprejudic'd Person will be inclin'd to think, if he considers how likely a thing it is, that the Fountains and Springs of Rivers are much alter'd since the Creation of the World; and consequently what these learned Men alledg concerning the rise and spring of Euphrates, &c. which they have met with in some Authors, is to little purpose.

3. I will add this, that Euphrates and Tigris were the only Rivers that were proper to Eden or Paradise; but the other two are mention'd, because they wash'd those Regions which appertain'd to and border'd upon that blessed Ground called Paradise. Paradise strictly taken was not so wide and spacious; but all the whole Country lying about that particular Ground, is in a large sense termed Paradise. We may observe it is said, God planted a Garden in Eden, Gen. 2. 8. not that the Gar∣den was as large as Eden, but rather it is evident from these words that Eden, was that Region of the Earth in part of which God planted a Garden; which was not, and indeed could not be so large as the place he planted it in. Yet without doubt it was of a very considerable length and breadth; the circumference of it was large and specious, and therefore Rivers, or Arms of Rivers at a great distance might belong to it. In short, the Soil thereabouts was in some measure Paradisiacal; but this one part of it was more eminently so, and in a pe∣culiar sense might be call'd Paradise, and the Garden of Eden.

Thus I hope I have given a full Answer to what was objected, and thereby made it very clear and perspicu∣ous that Paradise was planted in that Region which was afterward call'd Eden, and that Babylon (even that which was cursed Babylon afterwards) was the Seat of that blessed Ground. And tho what Tertullian and Augustin, and several of the Moderns (as Aquina••, Gregory de Valentiâ, Bellarmine, Del Rio, and others) have held, viz. that this happy place is not known to Mortals, may be thus far true, that we are not ac∣quainted with the individual Spot of Ground where Adam and Eve were placed in their Innocence: yet if these Persons aforemention'd meant what they said in a more general sense, their Opinion is false and groundless, for it is evident from the premises that Paradise was in the eastern part of the Continent of Asia; that it was

that part of Mesopotamia which was wash'd with Ti∣gris and Euphrates; that it was a kind of an Island made so by these and other Rivers that encompass it; and particularly that Babylon (now a known place in Turky) was afterward the name of the Country, that pleasant and delightful Country where the Garden of Paradise was situated. Here it was that our first Parents were seated by the particular appointment of God. In this happy Region of the World, in this blessed Island they were to spend their days.

But what were they to do here? What manner of Life were they to lead? What Laws were they govern'd by? This we are next to consider, and it is necessary to do so, in order to our being acquainted with the nature of this first Dispensation. God who had given Adam the whole Earth, and all that was in it to possess and enjoy, yet assign'd him this lesser portion of Ground to inhabit in, and to cultivate: and he would not suffer him to be idle and unimploy'd in that happy state of Innocence, but set him to dress and keep that choice piece of Earth, Gen. 2. 15. which would want his care, because it was so luxuriant. Here he was to em∣ploy his Mind, as well as exercise his Body: here he was to enjoy God, Himself, and the whole World: Here he was to contemplate and study God's Works; to submit himself wholly to the Divine Conduct; to con∣form•• all his Actions to the Will of his Maker, and to live in a constant dependence upon him: Here he was to spend his days in the continual exercises of Prayers and Praises: and it may be the very natural dictates of Gratitude would prompt him to offer up some of the Fruits of the Ground, and some living Creatures in way of Sacri∣fice unto God. There were thousands of Objects to exercise his Wit and Understanding, to call forth his Reason, and to employ it. But the ultimate perfection of his Life, without doubt, was to consist in the Union of his Soul with the chief Good, the infinite and eternal

Being, for it is this alone which constitutes the Happi∣ness of Man. His Mind being of a spiritual Nature, could find no satisfaction but in an Object that was of that kind; for a spiritual and intellectual Being must be entertain'd by its like. But the chief happiness ought to be something that is above us, and far exceeds us in excellency; for the Capacities of the Mind cannot be happy in any thing that is of an inferior nature to them. And the chief Good must be of infinite perfection, o∣therwise the vast and capacious Faculties of the Soul cannot be satisfied. Hence it follows that God alone was his supreme Blessedness, which he was entirely to possess and enjoy by such a knowledg as was perfective of his Understanding, and by such vehement and ar∣dent Acts of Love, whereby he might be intimately u∣nited to the eternal Good, and live in perpetual ••ruition of it, and that without Satiety; for there is1 1.67 no excess in the chief Good, it cannot be known, desired, loved, or enjoy'd too much. This was the designed Felicity of our first Parents. Neither they nor their whole Race were to be liable to sorrow or misery of any kind, but to be possessed of a constant and never-failing Hap∣piness: and after innumerable Ages and Successions, they were in their courses to be taken up to a heavenly Paradise.

In this Oeconomy Adam had two sorts of Laws to conduct him, viz. 1. The natural Law of Goodness and Righteousness in his own Breast. The Light of Reason was his Guide; and this shone very bright at that time: He had true conceptions of things, he had clear apprehensions of what was Good and Right, Just and Holy. He had a perfect knowledg of his Duty from this Law which God had implanted in his Nature. 2. Besides this natural or moral Law, Adam

receiv'd positive Laws from God in this state of his In∣nocence; and they were these three.

1. There was the Law of Matrimony. That this State of Life was instituted and appointed by God in Paradise, is clear from what we read in Gen. 2. 24. God having made the Woman, and brought her to the Man, he pronounced the Law of Marriage in these words, A Man shall leave his Father and his Mother, and shall cleave unto his Wife, and they shall be one Flesh. Here is the indissoluble Knot of Wedlock. But yet this must be said, that tho the first instituting and ap∣pointing of this State was from God, yet the Law of Nature dictated something of it. For this teacheth that two, and no more, agreeing to join in the Fellowship of Marriage, should become one Flesh: the Light of Rea∣son discovers, that a conjugal Union cannot consist of a Plurality. Thus far Matrimony, as 'tis the joining of one Man to one Woman, is a branch of the natural Law. But, as I have shew'd in another place, a Law may be partly natural, and partly positive; and so is this. It was positive, because God himself directed our first Parents to this State of Matrimony. But then Reason approving of the natural Equity of it, it may be said to be a Law of Nature.

2. The Hebrew Masters reckon that an absolute Pre∣cept, Gen. 1. 28. Be fruitful and multiply; and they look upon it as the first and the chiefest of all, as out of several of their own Writers, and out of1 1.68 Buxtorf is evident. But others esteem it rather a Benediction, wherein God approves of the propagation of Mankind, as he doth also of other Creatures, ver. 22. Yet this we may grant, that those words had the force of a Precept or Law, as well as a Benediction, with respect to our first Parents; they had the full force of a Com∣mand

to those two individual Persons Adam and Eve, and indispensably obliged them, because it was intended by God that Mankind should be increas'd and propa∣gated by those two particular Persons. But they are words of Approbation to all others afterwards; that is, they signify the lawfulness, tho not the necessity of Ma∣trimony and Generation.

3. There was a positive Law given to Adam in his Integrity concerning the keeping of the Sabbath, or ob∣serving the Seventh Day. God blessed the Seventh Day, and sanctified it, Gen. 2. 3. i. e. he assign'd it for some special purpose; he separated it from the other Days; he dedicated it more especially to Divine Worship: he set it apart to be the Feast of the World's Nativity; to call to mind the Works of the Creation; to magnify the Power, Wisdom and Goodness of God in the fram∣ing of the Universe; to extol his Providence in the World. In short, this Day was devoted to holy Uses, and the more solemn Service of God: This is blessing and sanctifying of that Day. Indeed we read not that Adam kept this Day after this manner; nor is it said that any of the old Patriarchs did: But we know that many things were done which are not recorded. Moses omits several Matters of Fact, (and he intending bre∣vity in his History, must needs do so) but we may sup∣ply them by our own collective Reason. Thus in the present case we find it expresly recorded, that God bles∣sed and sanctified the Seventh Day; here he instituted the celebration of it. We need not then question whe∣ther Adam, and the righteous Men that succeeded him, practis'd according to this divine Institution. But if any shall question it, I prove it thus.

First, There was no imaginable reason why this Day should not be celebrated presently after it was instituted. What was it sanctified and set apart for if not for this, to be observ'd? And can you conceive any thing that hindred this? No certainly. Therefore seeing it was

instituted, we may conclude it was kept, that is, that it was so from the Creation of the World. If it be ob∣jected, that Adam in Innocency lived free from Toil and Labour, and therfore the cessation on the Seventh Day was not necessary or proper for him: I answer, It is true, he was not subject to hard and uneasy labour, and such as was accompanied with fatigue; but it is as true, that he was bid to dress and keep the Garden, and consequently he was not unimploy'd; he had ordinarily some bodily Work to do, and to think of: But there was a certain time set him by God's particular appointment, on which he was to cease from this or any other worldly and corporeal Business, that he might devote himself whol∣ly to the Worship of God. This was the Sabbath Day which he was to keep, and there is no reason to think he did not keep it.

Secondly, This appears from the reason of God's ap∣pointing and setting apart this Day. His ceasing from his Works of the Creation on this Day was the ground of it: And what did that infer, but Man's cessation from working on that Day? Gen. 2. 2, 3. And can we think that God would not require this at his hand? Can we think that he would not take care to see this Rest from all labour observ'd? Can we think that Adam and Eve, the last Piece of the Divine Work, did not call their Creation and Formation to remembrance, and praise God for that as well as for his wonderful making of the World? Can we reasonably and on good grounds imagine any of these things, when the very Sabbath was instituted on purpose to perpetuate the memory of the Creation? May we not rather say that it is expresly re∣corded, that God blessed the Seventh Day before Adam's Fall, to intimate to us what Adam and Eve were to do the next day after their Formation, viz. to sanctify that Day in a solemn commemoration of the Divine Goodness to them?

Thirdly, There are several passages in the Old Testa∣ment, whence we may gather the early observation of the Seventh Day. The keeping of it seems to be inti∣mated in Gen. 8. 10. where we find that Noah divides the Time by Weeks, or seven Days: And so he doth again, ver. 12. Which being repeated, seems to tell us that the Seventh Day was then observed in a religious way by Noah in the Ark; who questionless had it from Adam, who receiv'd it from God, who instituted it to be a Commemoration of the Birth-day of the World, of the Divine Blessings that accompanied the Creation. It is not improbably conjectur'd by a 1 1.69 Learned Writer, that the Day when the Sons of God (i. e. Iob's Sons and other Holy Men, who are rightly call'd God's Sons or Children) came to present themselves before the Lord (Job 1. 6. & 2. 1.) was the Sabbath Day, the Day when the Professors of Religion met to∣gether in the publick Assemblies; for even in the Land of Vz they kept this solemn Day, they living near the Hebrews, who had it deriv'd to them from the Crea∣tion. Further, I desire it may be observ'd that there is express mention of the Sabbath Day before the Law was deliver'd on Mount Sinai. To morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord, Faith Moses, Exod. 16. 23. And when that Day was come, he thus speaks to them, To Day is a Sabbath unto the Lord, ver. 25. And it is plain, that it is meant of the Seventh day Sabbath, be∣cause the Day before was the sixth day, as you read in the foregoing Verse; but more expresly in ver. 26. there is mention of the Seventh Day which is the Sab∣bath. It appears then that this Day was kept before the Decalogue was given, and was antienter than the Laws of Moses.

And indeed the Fourth Commandment which en∣joins the keeping holy the Sabbath Day, seems to hint no less to us; for when the Israelites are bid to remem∣ber to do this, there is intimated to us in this manner of expression, that it was kept holy before, for remem∣brance hath regard to things past, and so forgetting re∣spects what hath been heretofore. It might be observ'd also that it is call'd in this Commandment Ha Sabbath, the Sabbath, or that Sabbath which I have enjoin'd you before to keep: The Article here seems to imply so much. But however, from what hath been said it is manifest that there was a day of Rest, a keeping of a Sabbath observ'd before the Law of Moses. And if before it, then it was by virtue of this Primitive Insti∣tution which I am now speaking of, and consequently the celebrating of this Day was from the beginning of the World. In Paradise was given the Law of Sancti∣fying the Seventh Day as a Day of Rest and holy Wor∣ship; as some of the1 1.70 ancient Writers of the Christian Church, who search'd into this matter further than o∣thers, have freely acknowledged. And therefore those words, Gen. 2. 3. God blessed the seventh Day, are not proleptick as some groundlesly imagine, but ac∣quaint us that that Day was then instituted, and was to be observ'd from that very time, that they might be settled in the Truth of God's creating the World, and not (like Pagans) think it to have been from Eter∣nity. This then must go along with the succeeding Dis∣pensations.

Fourthly, There was a positive Law given to Adam of abstaining from the Fruit of a certain Tree in the Gar∣den of Eden. We must know then, that in Paradise were divers sorts of Trees, but two of them were of more especial not than the rest. The first was the Tree

of Life; which was called so, because it was appointed by God to signify, that if our first Parents did obey God's Command, they should live for ever. It was design'd to be a Sacrament of that Immortality which Man should have had if he had retain'd his Innocence. This is clear from what is said in Gen. 3. 22.—lest he take of the Tree of Life, and eat, and live for ever. This Text proves (against the Socinians) that our first Parents should not have died if they had not transgressed the Divine Law; and it proves that the Tree of Life was give them on purpose to perpetuate their lives. The eat∣ing of the Fruit of that Tree would have been a means to have kept them from dying, and to have made them immortal. Yea, this Tree was a Symbol of all Hap∣piness, as Life is taken in that sense very frequently. Wisdom is said to be a Tree of Life to those that lay hold on her, Prov. 3. 18. Which is thus explain'd in the next Verse, Happy is every one that retaineth her. As often then as our first Parents had eaten of the Tree of Life, they were to be reminded by it, that all manner of Bliss and Happiness was to be entail'd upon them and their Posterity, if they continued in their Obedi∣ence, and broke not the Command of God. As long as they ••ed on this Tree, they should be void of old Age, Sickness, Pains, Cares, and all troubles of Body and Mind, till at last they should have been translated from the earthly Paradise to those compleat and eternal Re∣gions of Bliss at God's right hand. So that it was a Type of enternal Life and Bliss, and a Sign and Seal of these to them if they had not apostatiz'd. How long a time this particular course of preserving Health and Life should have continued, if Mankind (supposing in a state of Innocence) had increas'd, or whether other Trees of the same nature should have been produced in other Regions of the Earth, or whether there should have been some other way of keeping Mens Bodies from decay, I am not able to determine, nor need we concern our selves about it.

The other Tree in the Garden which was of more note than the rest, was the Tree of Knowledg of Good and Evil. And they were strictly forbidden by God to eat of This, they were by no means to taste any part of it. It was call'd the Tree of Knowledg of Good and Evil, because it was to try Adam whether he would do well or ill; or because the observing of that Prohibition was to be follow'd with the perfect enjoyment of Good, and the violating of it with the experience of all Evil of Sin and Punishment. It was to signify what they should know by eating, viz. the difference between the Evil of Disobedience, and the God of the contrary. Or thus, it was the Tree of Knowledg of Good and Evil, i. e. of the Good they had before, and of the Evil which was to ensue upon eating. They should experimentally find what Good they lost, and what Evil they fell into. So that it is probable this Tree had its name from the Event and Effect of it. It taught them by experience what Good and Evil was; for after Man had sinn'd in eating that forbidden Fruit, he saw and felt what Happiness he had lost, and what Misery he had procured.

Some have been so curious as to enquire, and so bold as to determine what particular Tree and Fruit this was. It was and Apple-tree, say some, and they would make it probable from Cant. 8. 5. It was the Vine, saith Vossius. It was the Indian Fig-tree, saith Goropius Becanus. Most say it was a Fig-tree, with the Leaves of which Adam and Eve covered their nakedness as soon as they had eaten of the Fruit.1 1.71 Theodoret stiffly maintains this Opinion, and saith. This was the reason why Christ cursed the Fig-tree.2 1.72 Athanasius, with3 1.73 o∣thers,

incline to this belief, but there is no ground for it: it must only pass as a Conjecture. And so that Father grants, in his Answer to that Demand, What Tree was it of which Adam eat the Fruit?1 1.74 No Man, saith he, is able exactly to discover that which the Scripture hath wilfully conceal'd.

The grand thing which we are to mind (and which is the principal thing in this first Oeconomy) is this, that it was God's pleasure that the Fruit of that Tree (whatever it was) should not be meddled with, and therefore straitly charged Adam and his Consort, that they should not dare to touch it. God might reasona∣bly act after this manner: For first (as an antient Writer saith on this Subject)2 1.75

God dispenseth all things sutably to the particular Time, and measur∣eth his Institutions by the Abilities and Powers of Men. Therefore he gave that Command of not eating of this Tree to Adam, as it were to a new∣born Babe.

He dealt with our first Parents as with Infants and Children; he tried them by mean and low things, as most agreeable to their nature. But second∣ly, tho he was thus pleased to prohibit them the Fruit of one single Tree, yet this was highly accountable if you consider that God gave them the use of all the rest of the Trees in Paradise. Of every Tree in the Garden thou mayest freely eat, Gen. 2. 16. there was only this one Tree excepted and reserved. Here was Liberty and Indulgence sufficient. And they might well have con∣tented themselves in the injoyment of it. Besides, the Creator can lay what Restraints he pleaseth on his Creatures. He that made both them and the Garden,

could justly bar them of any thing which that place afforded. Therefore God gave them this Precept to shew his Dominion over them, as he was their Maker and Lord.1 1.76 He would let them see by this little Com∣mand his absolute Soverainty over them, as a pious Fa∣ther speaks.

Again, God having made them reasonable, and in∣dowed them with a power or freedom of choice, he might justly exercise that Faculty, and put them to an actual trial of it: which could not be done but by pro∣posing something to their choice. As they had a ratio∣nal Nature and free Will given them by God, they were able to keep that Law of Abstinence; and therefore it was not unjust in God, yea it was just and fit to impose this upon them as they were free and reasonable Be∣ings. This shews the reason of this positive Law which was given them to try their Obedience. Likewise, it was very reasonable and equitable Command, that seeing God had con••err'd on them so many Benefits and Blessings, they should be limited as to a single one, that thereby they might shew their Thankfulness to God for all the rest. In the next place, consider also that God particularly told them what he expected from them, when he gave them a Prohibition about the Tree. He assured them, that if they ventured to eat of it, it should cost them their Lives, or, more em∣phatically in the Original, they should die the death. Here was fair warning, and they had time to consider of it; and they were sensible how greatly they were obliged to God, and how just and reasonable a thing it was to observe his first and original Law, (that which was 2 1.77 matrix omnium praeceptorum, as Tertullian calls it)

yea, to obey God in whatsoever he commanded.

Fifthly, To the revealed Laws under the State of In∣tegrity, we must refer the Covenant of Works: For we may gather from the Sacred Writings, that there was a mutual Agreement or federal Compact between God and our first Parents, wherein he promis'd to them E∣ternal Life and Happiness, on condition of their perfect Obedience to his Laws; and on the contrary, Death was threatned if they disobey'd, as we have heard al∣ready. It is true, it is not expresly call'd a Covenant in Genesis; but it was one, for God gave Man a Law, and back'd it with Threatnings and Promises, and Man a∣greed and consented to it, which is the formal nature of a Covenant. Not are we to think that those two Per∣sons, and no more, were under this Dispensation. Altho only Adam and Eve were in actual being at that time, yet all Mankind were included in them, and represen∣ted by them, and therefore are to be reckon'd as under that Dispensation. For God having created our first Parents without Sin, and with knowledg of their Du∣ty, and strength to do it, he made a Covenant or A∣greement with them, not only in behalf of themselves, but of all their Posterity. It was covenanted, that if they and their Race continued in Obedience, they should never die, but be always blessed and happy; but if they disobey'd the Divine Command, they should be subject to Death, and be every way wretched and miserable. It is certain they consented and agreed to this; for in that State of Integrity, what God propounded to them could not but be acceptable. God would offer that which was just and equitable, as he was God: Our first Parents would not disagree to it, as they were indu••d with a perfect understanding, and knew that what their Maker propounded was most reasonable. They could not but approve of the Condition on their part, viz. Obedience; and they could not but accept of the Reward promis'd on God's part, viz. endless Hap∣piness.

That they fully consented to the Contract, in the name of themselves and their Posterity, is demon∣strable from many passages in Holy Writ, as that Hos. 6. 7. They like Adam (for so it is the Hebrew) have transgress'd the Covenant; which refers to God's Co∣venant with Mankind in the beginning of the World, when Adam was their Representative: And it is cer∣tain that he could not transgress it unless he had first a∣greed to it. And this is abundantly clear from the Epistles of St. Paul., which frequently have reference to this very thing. And the Truth of this may be too manifestly gather'd from the miserable Effects and Con∣sequences of it which we now experience. This Co∣venant then, and this Dispensation to which it belongs, extend to all Mankind. As being in Adam they were all indued with the Divine Image, they were all pos∣sess'd of Life and Happiness; and might have so conti∣nued, unless they had in him fallen from their Primitive Integrity.

Hitherto Man was in honour, Psal. 49. 12. being crea∣ted in God's Image he was placed in Paradise, he was possess'd of all manner of Felicity; and he might have perpetuated it to himself and his Posterity. This is the first State of Man, viz. that of Innocence, which consti∣tutes the first Dispensation.

CHAP. II.

The Nature of the Second General Dispensati∣on. The several particular Ingredients of the First Sin. Its Aggravations from the Matter of it. What kind of Creature the Serpent was, whom the Devil made use of in seducing our first Parents. It was not a firy flying Serpent, but an ordinary one. Where∣in the Subtilty of this Animal consisted. That Adam and Eve fell not on the same day in which they were made, is proved from Scrip∣ture and Reason. The dreadful Effects of the Fall which related to themselves. Others which belong'd not only to them, but to their whole Race. Death was the Penal Consequence of the First Defection. The Inward and Spiritual Evils that attended it are enumerated. How Man became like the Beasts. Eternal Death the Fruit of his Apostacy. The Pe∣nalty inflicted on the Serpent. Not only our First Parents, but all Mankind were under this Second Dispensation.

THE second General Dispensation is the State of Sin and Infelicity, viz. from Adam's Fall till he was Restored and Recover'd. This State is doubly ex∣press'd by the Psalmist,1 1.78 Man understood not, but be∣came

like the Beasts. The first represents his Sin and Fall, the second the Effects of it: So here are both his Fault and his Penalty. As among Philosophers there is Physiology, which is the considering of Bodies in their natural Temper, and there is Pathology, which is the consideration of Man's Body, as fallen into a state of Disease; so in Divinity we distinctly treat of these two, the State of Innocence (the primitive temper of Mankind) and the State of Corruption, (which is a de∣generacy from that first Temper and Constitution.) Des Cartes imagines this Earth of ours to have been once a glorious Sun, but afterward to have sunk into another Vortex, and to be overcast with Spots and Scum, and so to move slowly, and to be what it now is. It is certain that Man, the best Creature on Earth, was once a bright and glorious Being, and moved in a high Sphere, and cast a most ravishing Light: He had the I∣mage of God, and the Characters of Divine Wisdom impress'd upon him: but he soon lost his Primitive Light and Lustre, he forsook his Station, and was absorp'd into darkness, and overspread with Sin and Misery.

I begin first with Adam's Sin: and here I must en∣quire into these two things; 1. What this Sin was? 2. Who were the Instruments of it? As to the Sin it self, it was no other than this; Whereas God had com∣manded our first Parents, that they should not eat of the Fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil, they wilfully despised that Command, and took of the forbidden Fruit, and did eat of it. This was the Sin of Adam and Eve, and the first Sin that ever was in the World. But this I must insert, that there were many undue In∣clinations and vitious Dispositions in their Souls, which made way for this actual and external Transgression, and may be said to be parts and ingredients of this Sin, and which are also great Aggravations of their Crime.

1. Man being in Honour understood not, which may signify that ignorance and senslesness which they had

contracted by non-attention. They consider'd not what Honour and Dignity they had, and so discerned not what was their proper Duty in that State. Incogitancy was the first rise and occasion of the Fall of our first Parents, saith the profound Dr. Iackson, and that ve∣ry rightly. And before him St. Chrysostom had deter∣min'd in the like manner; for he holds that Negligence was the first Fault: they grew heedless and careless, not reflecting on their state and circumstances, not duly thinking what they were, and what they ought to do: thence arose their transgression.

2. Sensuality was the previous cause of the first A∣postacy. The sight of the Fruit excited the Woman's Appetite. When she saw the Tree was good for Food, and that it was pleasant to the Eyes, she took of the Fruit thereof, and did eat, Gen. 3. 6. And she might easily prevail with her Husband to do so too, whilst he perhaps was as much taken with her Beauty, as she was with that of the Fruit. There have been several Con∣jectures about the rise of the first Transgression (and I am now presenting the Reader with them) but if I should say that Lust, among other Incentives, was the first spring of it, I think no considerate Man can disal∣low what I propound. For tho the new-married couple were created without any tincture of sinful Concupis∣cence, yet God had planted in them those natural Incli∣nations which were proper and sutable to the Conjugal State. Tho these were unpolluted and void of all Vice, yet God had placed the Possessors of them in such a mutable State, and had endued them with such Powers and Faculties, both of Soul and Body, that they might make use of them to good or evil, as they pleas'd. And accordingly they enclined to the latter, and turn'd the concupiscible part into that which was evil and vici∣ous, and so their innocent Propensions to one another were chang'd into lustful Amours; and their mutual desires and complacencies, occasion'd by the force of

each others Beauty, became instrumental to that Sin which we are treating of. With Adam more especially this had a great sway, for his Wise was a very fair and lovely Creature; and it is probable that he look'd on her more than on the Fruit. This was not so fair as she that handed it to him; and therefore he was more in love with her than with that, because he saw a brightness in that Face which was more charming than what the Tree afforded. But yet he had a love to this for the sake of the other; and thereupon the uxorious Man (after se∣veral fits of reluctancy, we may suppose) resolv'd to gratify his Spouse; being beguil'd by her Beauty, and by that amorous propension which it had produc'd in him, he could deny her nothing: Or, to speak in more gene∣ral terms, his entire love and affection to her prevail'd with him to do as she did, i. e. to violate the Com∣mandment because she did so. Which we may gather from those words of his, Gen. 3. 12. The Woman whom thou gavest to be with me, (and to be my other-self) she gave me of the Tree, and I did eat: For tho he did ill in laying his Fault, and transferring his Guilt on the Woman, thereby only to excuse himself; yet thus far we may believe him, that he was drawn into this trans∣gression by her whom God had given unto him. His passionate regard to her betray'd him to this folly. Thus this desire of his Eyes was one occasion of his misery. By the Inchantments and Sollicitations of a Woman, Man was first ruin'd. Whilst he was alone he did well, but when he saw so fair and Image he was tempted to fall down to it, and to comply with it, and to forget him∣self and his duty. This was the Origine of Adam's prevarication; the sensitive part was too powerful. Plea∣sure betray'd him, and ever since all Mankind: the ani∣mal and sensual Life gets the better of the Divine.

3. Another previous Sin of our first Parents was, a being dissatisfied with their condition, and an ambitious desiring to know more, and to become greater. It was

a vile compound of Curiosity, Discontent and Pride: yea, this latter seems to have the predominancy; whence it was the determination of1 1.79 one of the Antient Fathers, that Adam and Eve's first Sin by which they fell was Pride. The Devil inve••gled them with telling them, that their Eyes should be opened, and that they should know Good and Evil; nay, that they should be as Gods in knowledg and perfection, Gen. 3. 5. This was no mean incentive to the breach of the Divine Law; tho indeed it was a strange solecism and absur∣dity, (and it is an strange that our first Parents should not observe it) viz. that they should be like God by breaking his Law. This was an arrant piece of Non∣sence, and yet it was swallowed, the vehement desire of seeing having blinded them, their inordinate longing af∣ter Wisdom rendring them so foolish and sottish. Their affection of Knowledg, and their vain Ambition, ru∣ined them. Their desire to arrive to the Partners with God Almighty, made them forget they were his Crea∣tures. Their wishing to be Gods, made them become like Beasts which perish (as you shall hear afterwards): Yea, their desire to be like Gods, made them too like unto Devils.

The 4^th Sin which made way for their actual violat∣ing God's Command was Vnbelief. God had himself told him, that in the day they eat of the forbidden Fruit, they should surely die, Gen. 2. 17. But Satan comes and con••ronts this, and tells them, Y•• shall not surely die, Gen. 3. 4. Whereupon they give credit to this Tempter, and disbelieve what God had said. They at∣tend not to the Divine Threatnings, but listen to the Devil's Promises of Impunity. They believe the Fa∣ther of Lies, but what the God of Truth saith is none of their Creed. This was the cursed Infidelity which

was the forerunner of the actual breaking of the Divine Command.

Thus you may be convinc'd, that tho the eating the forbidden Fruit may at first sight seem to be a small mat∣ter, a kind of venial Fault, (and some vain Men have labour'd to represent it as such) yet upon a particular and narrow view of it, and by reason of the Circumstances that attend it, it was a most grievous and horrid Crime. That Sin which was usher'd in with so many vile Har∣bingers, must needs be a capital Offence. Besides, the greatness of the Transgression must be esteem'd and measur'd by the Authority of the Lawgiver; we must consider not so much what was forbid, as who forbad it. God, their Creator and Father, who had absolute Power and Command over them; God, who knew best how to govern them, and what was most for their real Good and Advantage; God, who required the ob∣servance but of a small and easy thing, ought to have been obey'd with all exactness. Adam and Eve had no Father but God; how just and reasonable then was it, that they should express all Duty and Obedience to him; that they should observe his Laws, and not dare to break the ••east Command of his; that they should do nothing without his order, and never listen to any that would attempt to withdraw them from their duty; but that they should continually live in a sense of their de∣pendence upon him; that they should call upon him, trust in him, honour and worship him only; that they should strive to walk worthy of the sin∣gular Favours they had receiv'd from him, and that they should endeavor to persevere in their Innocence and Integrity, and to continue in that blessed State wherein God had created them?

And as for the Matter of the Sin, the letter and lighter it is, the greater is the Sinner's contempt of God. This inhances his Fault, that he preferreth so slight a thing before God's Will and Pleasure; that he regard∣eth

not the Divine Anger, tho it be so easy to avoid it. Here we may say, as Cicero doth in defence of the Stoicks Paradox, (viz. that all Sins are alike)1 1.80 The Matter is small, but the Fault is great. Yea, I may add, the latter is the greater because the former is so small. The Sin of Adam and Eve was the more grie∣vous and inexcusable, because it was in so little a mat∣ter as the bare tasting of the Fruit of a Tree. Which was a thing they had no temptation to, if we consider that the whole Garden of Fruit was before them, and there was but one single Tree only forbidden them. But it seems all the rest were insipid without this; no Tree will so content them as the forbidden one. There was no Fruit so desirable as this; and it is likely this had not been desired if it had not been forbidden. This argues great perversness and obstinacy, and consequently ag∣gravateth their Sin, and senders their Offence very hei∣nous.

Say not then, the eating of the Fruit of a Tree is a light and inconsiderable thing. So it might be said, Lot's Wise did only look back to see the miserable ruin of the place she lived in. What! might she not look behind her? It was out of pity that she did this. Did this deserve so sore a Punishment? Abraham2 1.81 look'd on Sod••m in its flames, and was not punish'd. It was not criminal in him to do so: Why then was it in this poor Woman? The plain Answer is this, that there are many things from whence Actions are denominated Good or Evil. They are sometimes reputed so by God according to the intrinsick Causes and Reasons of them, sometimes also according to their good or evil Ad∣juncts; but at all times according to the Will and Command of God, allowing or disallowing of such

Actions. By these we must judg of Lot's Wife's Sin•• Out of an immoderate love of the City, which had been the place of her abode, or from an inward cove••∣ing of the Goods which she left behind her, or from a foolish pitying of those whom God had design'd for De∣struction, she stood, and look'd back. Which Exam∣ple of hers might have produced the like Passions in o∣thers: And if it had gone unpunish'd, a great contempt of God's Providence would have been the effect. But the chief thing which made her looking back to•• be sinful was this, that it was a direct Affront to the Com∣mand of God, who had strictly charged them to fly, and not to look back, Gen. 19. 15. 17. And he certainly ought to have been obey'd, he that so graciously deli∣ver'd them from the flames of Sodom, he that rescued them thence out of his mere Mercy and Favour; he that required observance in so easy a matter as this, he surely was not to be repay'd with Disobedience; there∣fore he acted most justly when he severely punish'd it in this stubborn Woman.

So in the Sin of our first Parents, we have shew'd be∣fore that the intrinsick Causes of it were very bad, and the adjoining Circumstances might be prov'd to be as evil and pernicious: but if we consider that it was a wilful violating of the Divine Command (as it most palpably was) it will appear to be yet more sinful and vitious. It was no less than a set and voluntary chu∣sing of Death and Misery, and re••using of everlasting Happiness. There can't be imagin'd a greater Sin than this; nothing could speak them greater Rebels against Heaven. For God designing that his new-made Crea∣tures, by conforming to that Prohibition, should testify their acknowledgment of him, and their subjection to him; their acting contrary to it was a high instance of Rebellion, and a downright disowning of God's Domi∣nion and Authority. And tho indeed it was disobe∣dience to the Divine Command in a lesser matter, yet

even thence the baseness of the Action is more mani∣fested, and the greater ingratitude and un••aithfulness of the Sinners are discovered. Thus you see what the Sin of our first Parents was, you are acquainted with the nature of their Offence.

Secondly, I will in a few words speak of the Pr••∣curer and Instrument of it. Whilst our first Parents were in their happy state of Integrity, they are envied by the Spirits of Darkness, the Fallen Angels, a rank of Creatures that were made by God to enjoy a blessed Immortality, and to be the Attendents and Ministers of the Majesty of Heaven; but they soon1 1.82 revolted from God, and for their Pride and Arrogance were thrust down from Heaven, and divested of that Dignity and Glory which were confer'd upon them. These wicked and reprobate Spirits being thus degraded, maliciously and revengefully resolv'd to disturb the Felicity of Man∣kind, and to betray the innocent Inhabitants of Para∣dise into the same misery with themselves. The Prince of these Apostate Spirits (it is most probable) was by general consent of the rest chosen to effect this direful Project, and the method they pitch'd upon was to set upon the Woman first, and that in the disguise of a Ser∣pent. 2 1.83 Cyril, and one or two others of the Antients were of Opinion, that he Devil appear'd in the like∣ness only of a Serpent: but it is more probable that the entred into a true and real Serpent, according to the sentiment of most of the Fathers. And they have the plain History on their side, which saith he was the sub∣tilest of all the Beasts of the Field, Gen. 3. 1. And besides, the Curs•• denounc'd against this Animal, shews it was a natural Serpent, Gen. 3. 14.3 1.84 One tells us,

that this Creature was a Basilisk:1 1.85 Another saith, it was a Viper; and a* 1.86 third saith, it was a Dragon, (which is an overgrown Serpent). But the Devil ap∣pearing in the shape of these Creatures, would have terrified rather than allured the poor Female. Others (on a contrary extreme) think that it was a bright, glorious and winged Serpent that appeared to her. They fancy that a Daemon or Devil came to Eve like some Angel or Saraph: for the Seraphim or Angels appear'd in form of splendid flying Serpents sometimes, as they would prove from Num•• 21. 6. where the Serpents that God sent among the Israelites are call'd Seraphim. And from this place, and Isa. 14. 29. they gather that these flying Serpents, that were very bright, and shin∣ing like Fire, were usual in the Eastern Countries.

I have found lately, that two excellent Persons, of great Name and Esteem in our own Church, favour this Opinion. But, with due respect and deference given first to their Judgment, I make bold to offer these Rea∣sons why I dissent from them in this present matter: 1. We have no certain knowledg or account of the Serpents spoken of in the forenamed Texts; only we know that they were raging, fierce and venomous, and thence it is likely they were call'd Seraphim, burning, because by their venomous Sting they produced an in∣flammation in that part of the Body which they stung. And they might be said to flie, because of their swift and impetuous motion, wherein they exceeded other Serpents. 2. If I should grant that there were such firy flying Serpents as these worthy Persons suppose, and that they are spoken of in the foregoing places, yet it seems not to me probable that Satan would make use of such an affrighting Creature to deal with our Mother

Eve. This sort of Animals, in my apprehension, would sooner scare than entice her. Methinks his fierce and furious motion should strike terror into her; his flaming Wings should make her fly from him, not hold discourse with him. Or at least, 3. this Spectacle was too glittering and dazeling, so that she could not en∣dure the brightness of it. I am apt to conceive that such a sight was fitter to amaze than to tempt. 4. When I find this Serpent reckon'd among the Beasts of the Field, and that twice, Gen. 3. 1, 14. I must needs say, I cannot easily be perswaded that it was of that kind before named; it seems not to me to be a winged Animal moving aloft in the Air. I do not well appre∣hend, I confess, how such a one can be numbred among the Beasts of the Field, or Earth. Tho the Holy Ghost in Scripture having barely told us that it was a Serpent, it is most natural and genuine to conclude, it was an ordinary Serpent, such as God had lately crea∣ted, and such as among other Creatures lived on the Soil of Paradise.

Now the Serpent was more subtil than any Beasts of the Field which the Lord God had made, Gen. 3. 1. The subtilty of the Serpent denoteth here to us the gentle, familiar and insinuating nature of this Animal: For the Author of the Iewish Antiquities observes, that this Creature1 1.87 frequently convers'd, and in a familiar man∣ner associated with Adam and his Wife. And so an 2 1.88 Antient Father of the Church agrees with this Iewish Writer, telling us, that the Serpent before the Fall was mild and gentle, and more familiar with Man than o∣ther Creatures were, that he came to him often, and was pleas'd with his Society, that he did not creep on

the ground, but went on his feet. But the same Author goes too far when he intimates, that he was of an erect Figure, for that is proper only to Man. It is very pro∣bable that the Serpent did not then grovel and creep on the Earth as he now doth, (for this was the Curse pro∣nounced against him after the Fall) but he was some∣what lifted up from the ground by feet, (tho perhaps they were very short) for you find in the forenamed place, that he is sorted with the Beasts of the Field, which are distinguish'd in kind from creeping things, Gen. 1. 25. Another1 1.89 Ecclesiastical Writer agrees with the former Author, that the Serpent was more sociable and conversant with our first Parents than all the other Creatures were; that he often approach'd to them, and insinuated himself into them with the gentle motions of his Body. I do not think, with Iosephus, that the Serpent (and all other Beasts) naturally spoke in Pa∣radise, (a Dream which Basil also assents to); but this I am ascertain'd of from the inspired Records of Moses, that the Devil spoke by the Serpent, or (which is all one) that the Serpent possessed by the Devil spoke to Eve. So we read afterwards that an Ass by an extra∣ordinary impulse spake to Balaam.

And since that time, several Histories mention the speaking of irrational Animals, yea of inanimate Crea∣tures: Thus a River spoke to Pythagoras, and saluted him as he passed by it, if we may believe Porphyrius in his Life. A Tree spoke to Apollonius Tyanaeus, saith Philostratus. This was the effect of Magick, both those Persons being skill'd in that Art. It will be granted then, that the Devil is able to do what his A∣gents and Ministers can effect; thus here, the Serpent spake to Eve by the motion of Satan actuating his Body: The Devil moved his Tongue, and inabled him

to hold a Discourse with the Woman. And now if you consider that he was by his Nature and Make of a graceful Hew and Figure, and that he was made by God a subtil and insinuating Creature, you will not deny that he was fit to be made use of by Satan to intice and in∣veigle the Woman. Wherefore the1 1.90 bold Man that laughs at this part of the Mosaick History concerning the Serpent and Eve talking together, and in effect re∣presents it as a mere Fiction, hath as little Reason as Religion on his side. It is certainly agreeable to Rea∣son that the Devil would tempt and seduce her by making use of some familiar and domestick Creature, if he used any at all. The Fox was cunning and craf∣ty, but the Serpent was the most gentle and tractable of all; this was his proper subtilty. It is probable that this Creature was beloved both by Adam and Eve: She especially was delighted with it, and used to play and sport with it; she laid it perhaps in her Bosom, or a∣dorned her Neck with its twistings and windings; or she made it a Bracelet for her Arms.

This is certain, that the enmity between the Serpent and Mankind was not till after Man's Fall, as appears from Gen. 3. 15. I will put Enmity between thee and the Woman, and between thy Seed and her Seed. There could not be an Enmity put between them, unless there had been a Friendship before. Or, if the Serpent used before to ensnare or hurt Mankind, and to shew himself an Enemy, why is it denounced by God as a Threat∣ning and Curse, that he will put Enmity between them? It is evident then, that the Serpent was some goodly lovely Creature, and would needs make himself accep∣table to the Woman: And in this Masquerade the Devil soon got the better of her, perswading her that if she did eat of the prohibited Fruit, she should be so far from

receiving any harm and damage, that she should thereby mend her condition, and be some Goddess rather than a Woman. She was caught with these fond and flat∣tering Suggestions, and slighted the Divine Injunction, and boldly ventured on the forbidden Dainties. The subtil Ingineer planted his Artillery against the weakest part of the Fort: he began his Batteries against the fee∣ble Sex first, Alas! a silly Woman, and a subtil Ser∣pent acted by the Devil, were not Matches. And as this latter tempted Eve by a Serpent, so he tempted Man by Eve, who was gentle and alluring, familiar and insinuating, and not easily to be repulsed. The weak Woman must needs fall, being sollicited both by Satan and the Serpent: The poor Man could not but fall who had a triple temptation, that of the Devil, the Ser∣pent, and the Woman.

Thus both Man and Woman fell, and that in a short time after they were created. Man being in honour,1 1.91 a∣bideth not. He stood not one night (say some) in in∣tegrity, but apostatized in the close of the same day in which he was made; and in the very same day he was cast out of Paradise. So the Iews generally, and ma∣ny of the Christian Fathers assert. Luther is very punctual:2 1.92

Our first Parents entred (saith he) into the Garden at Noon-day; and the Woman having an Appetite, and taking delight in the Food, eat of it about two a clock.

But these two things may in∣cline us to think that they did not: 1. What the Sacred History concerning that matter affordeth us. 2. What Reason, and the thing it self will suggest to us about it. 1. The History of the Acts of that Day on which Adam was made, is a sufficient confutation of this Opi∣nion. For Moses in the Book of Genesis acquaints us,

that on that Day wherein he was created (which was the sixth day) all these things were done: 1. Being created without Paradise, he was that day1 1.93 brought into it. 2. The Tree of Life, and the Tree of the Know∣ledg of Good and Evil were2 1.94 proposed to him. 3. A Law concerning3 1.95 abstaining from one of them was gi∣ven him. 4. All the four-footed Creatures, one of a sort at least, were4 1.96 brought to him, and set before him; and he view'd and observ'd them, and according to the nature and differences of every Species, gave peculiar Names to them. The same he did to all the Fowls of the Air. This would take up a considerable time. 5. After this Adam5 1.97 fell into a deep sleep, and a Rib is taken out of his side, and of it the Woman was made. 6. God, as the Paranymph,6 1.98 brings this Spouse to A∣dam, who acknowledgeth her to be a part of him, and takes her into intimate familiarity, and made her his Wife. All this was done on the sixth Day; but we do not read that any more was done.

But you will say, If it admitted of so much work, we may as well add the eating of the forbidden Fruit, which did not take up much time. But I answer, we learn not from the History that this was done on that day: Yea, we are sure it was not done, for it is said of the Works of the sixth day, as of the foregoing ones, God saw every thing that he had made, and behold it was very good, Gen. 1. 31. It is not probable this would have been said, if Man had not continued good till then, and if Sin, the greatest Evil of all, was entred at that time. And we are to observe that these words were pro∣nounced

concerning what happen'd all the space of that sixth day of the Creation: And all the things before∣mention'd (which are the Contents of the second Chapter of Genesis) are suppos'd to be comprehended within this time; for 'tis said immediately after the foregoing approbation in the close of the first Chapter of Genesis, that the Evening and the Morning (which make the Day compleat) were the sixth Day. After this you read that the story of Adam's Fall begins, that Satan attempts the Woman, that there were several Dis∣courses between the Serpent and the Woman, and be∣tween her and the Man. Therefore 'tis evident that our Parents did not fall from God on the same day they were ••reated.

Secondly, Several Reasons may be offer'd why it was not so, viz. first because it is more worthy of God to believe that Adam and his Mate were not baffled so soo•• after their Creation. It is not congruous to God's Wis∣dom to create so excellent a Frame, and let it be spoil'd immediately. Then more particularly this may be al∣ledged, that God's proposal of the Covenant of Works to our first Parents, (on which depended the whole re∣sult of the present Affair) their mutual consenting to it, and the ratifying it on God's part, and Man's part, in some solemn manner, were a Work which required some length of time. Further, the Parley between Sa∣tan and Eve might be of a long continuance, to it is briefly set down by Moses. It is probable that she at first gave a repulse to the Assault; it is likely that several Onsets were made before she yielded. We cannot but suppose a considerable time of tempting, because other∣wise it would have been a Surprize, and then it would not have been what it is; that is, the Transgression would not have been of so heinous a nature, and would not have been animadverted on so severely. Again, it is rational to think that Adam and his Wise being created by God in that perfection of Knowledg and Holiness which

are acknowledg'd to have been in them, could not sud∣denly be drawn from their obedience to God. Those high Endowments could not easily be lost, those Di∣vine Gifts could not decay but by little and little. Therefore upon this account we have reason to believe and affirm, that these Persons shrunk back from their Integrity by degrees, and not all at once, and that the space of time between their Temptation and actual Transgression in eating the forbidden Fruit, was of some length, much more than we can reasonably sup∣pose to have been crowded into one single day. Thus both Scripture and Reason induce us to reject that com∣mon Opinion, that our first Parents fell from their Pri∣mitive Innocence on the very day that they were made.

But when I say this, I pretend not to determine how long Adam and Eve continued in their Innocence, and what time pass'd before they were turn'd out of Para∣dise. None can positively assert, that they were created and fell upon the same day, because it is no where said so. But then on the other hand, it is as true that none can be positive as to the certain time of their abiding in their Innocence, because we find it not mention'd. As those who say they fell in the very day in which God formed them, are not to be credited; so those Caba∣listick Iews, who say they were twenty years in Para∣dise before they were turn'd out, are to be utterly ex∣ploded. The renowned Vsher (in his Annals) holds, that Adam was expell'd out of Paradise on the tenth day from the beginning of the World; according to which timing of it, he fell in the third or fourth day after that of his Creation; for it is not to be thought that he staid there after his Fall. But in my judgment those Hebrew Doctors (for they are not all o•• them of the same mind) who hold that our first Parents con∣tinued both in their Integrity and in Paradise eight days, do approach nearest to the Truth. It is likely that they retain'd their Innocence, amidst many Assaults

and Temptations, ••ill about that time: so that as the first Week in the World ended with the Creation of Man and Woman; so their fatal Seduction and Fall were the close of the second week. However, from the Premises it is eviden••, that there was a considerable time between their Formation and Lapse.

Hitherto I have consider'd the Sin and Fall of our first Pa••ents; now I must speak of the dreadful Effects, of it. Man became like the Beasts which perish. Man was in a happy and glorious condition, but made himself wretched and miserable. Man was in honour; we were once happy. In which sense those words in Gen. 3. 22. may be understood; Behold, the Man was as one of us, for so it may be rendred according to the1 1.99 He∣brew. He was so happy as to be like one of us; he was created after our Image, but now is miserable. It is such a manner of speaking as that of the Poet,

—Fuimus Troes, ••uit Ilium, & ingens Gloria Teucrorum.

Unless you are rather inclin'd to think those words are spoken ironically, and by way of Interrogation, Is the Man become like one of us? As much as to say, he is not, he is far from it, he is lost and undone, he hath made himself a very lamentable and wretched Crea∣ture.

Let us now briefly recount the Particulars of his Misery. First, God who for••ad Man to eat of the Tree of Knowledg, now forbids him to touch the Tree of Life. Now Man is turn'd out of Para∣dise, that Garden of Pleasure; he is sent out of God's Presence, and is become a Reprobate and Castaway. There is a stern Angel with a flaming Sword set at the

entrance of Eden, to keep him and his Posterity out for ever. We may in part imagine, but we cannot suffici∣ently relate how sad and deplorable the condition of Adam and Eve was at this time. They could not but spend their days in languishing Grief, in continual Sighs and Tears; they could not but be filled with Regret and Remorse, when they reflected on their past Felici∣ty, and the loss of it by their Folly; when they look'd forward also, and saw the innumerable Evils which in∣sue upon this their Miscarriage.

To augment their Sorrows, there soon happen'd a dismal effect of their Fall and Depravation. Their dear Son Abel was murder'd by his own Brother, the same Devil that deluded them working on him. And how can the disconsolate Parents bear this and the rest of their Sorrows? The Children had been brought up well, they had been set to honest Imployments. Adam gave unto Cain, Lands to till, unto Abel Sheep to keep; their Callings intimating to them what should be their Allotment and Portion afterwards, the Real Estate being to be assigned to the eldest Son, and the Personal to the younger, as is in use at this day. But the careful Pa∣rents might dispose of their Estate, but they could not entail Virtue and Grace upon their Children. Cain most maliciously rose up against his Brother, and neither his Innocency nor his near Relation to him, could di∣vert him from violently pursuing and shedding his Blood. This made th•• hearts of the distressed Parents bleed afresh, this added new dolours to their former ones, and caus'd them yet more seriously to look back on their vile Apostacy from God, which was the spring of all the Miseries they underwent.

There is nothing said in Scripture of the Repentaonce of these Sinners after their Fall; whereupon some have concluded, that these first Offenders died in Impeniten∣cy, and were denied all Mercy and Pardon. But it thust be remembred, that the Sacred History omits many

things, being very short and compendious; yea, of this very nature some things are pass'd by, as that Noah re∣pented of his Drunkenness, and Lot of his Incest; so that we cannot draw an Argument in this case from Scripture-silence. But we have reason rather to believe that Adam and Eve did repent, and were saved: for the•• Promise of the Seed, which was to redeem and save Mankind, was made immediately after the Fall, and so concern'd them as well as others, Gen. 3. 15. Besides, we may piously believe, that God's Mercy would not overpass these poor Offenders at its very first setting out, but rather that it would begin with them, to give an In∣stance of his present Pity and Kindness, and an assurance of his future Goodness and Clemency. The wise God would not suffer Satan to boast, that his first Conquest and Spoils remain'd entire, and met not with an after∣defeat. This was the Judgment of the most antient, pious and learned1 1.100 Fathers, and they declar'd, that the Tatiani, and others who held that Adam never repented, but was damned, were very unreasonable and absurd in their Assertion. Yea, Irenaeus and Epiphanius reckon this as an Haresy, and con••ute it. And this may be observ'd, that the Fathers, both Greek and Latin, do generally agree in this, that Adam was buried on Mount Calvary, where Christ was crucified, intimating there∣by that he had the benefit of our Saviour's Sufferings, that his Repentance for his Apostacy was accepted for Christ's sake, that in the great and universal Shipwrack of the World (for it was then all concern'd) he swam safe to shore on this Plank.

But I proceed to consider some larger Effects of our first Parents Apostacy, i. e. what befel their whole Race

as well as themselves. We will consider them both to∣gether. And these dole••ul Effects are both Temporal and Eternal. I begin with the first, the temporal E∣vils; they are either outward or inward. The outward and bodily Evils, which are the Consequences of Man's revolt, are very many and great. Cursed is the Ground for thy sake, saith God to Adam, Gen. 3. 17. At first its pregnancy and ••ecundity were exceeding great, so that it yielded its Fruit easily without any toil.

—1 1.101 Per se dabat omnia tellus.

And again,

—Ipsaque tellus Omnia liberiùs nullo poscente ferebat.

And the like we find spoken by other Poets concerning the Golden Age, from some broken Notions and Tradi∣tions (as a2 1.102 judicious Person of our own hath ob∣serv'd) of Man's first Estate in Paradise, and of that Estate wherein the World and all things should have con∣tinued, of Man had not fallen. There was nothing noxious in the Earth at first, all things were safe and wholesom, useful and pleasant, serviceable for the Life of Man, and every ways advantageous to him. But Man's Fall introduced a change, the Ground brought forth Thorns and Thistles, Gen. 3. 18. which shews, that the former fruitfulness of it was decay'd, and that now it would require some toil and pains to prepare and manure it, in order to a plentiful Crop.

And therefore I am not forward to assent to what a late learned Writer suggests, that3 1.103 the Pl••ugh was of no

use till after the Deluge, and was not invented till than: as if the State of Innocence lasted till that time. He confesses himself, that1 1.104 God sent the Deluge ••o destroy that Constitution of the Earth, which was calculated and contrived for a State of Innocence, and to fashion it a∣new according to the lapsed and frail state of Mankind: And therefore according to his own concession, the Flood should have come presently after the Fall of Man, where∣as it was above sixteen hundred years after i••r This Author ingeniously lays hold upon the Sentence of Death, which was pronounced at the same time with this part of the Curse about the Earth's Sterility, and argues from the suspending of that to the suspending of this. But I conceive this is not a good way of arguing, un∣less he could have proved that neither our first Parents, nor any others, felt the effect of that Sentence of Mor∣tality before the Deluge; for it is of this which he was discoursing, and his Opinion is, that this was the cause which check'd the exuberance of the Earth, and therefore the Curse took not place till this time. But the very words and expressions themselves, by which the Curse of Sterility is set forth, seem to me to put this matter out of controversy: for they respect not on∣ly Mankind in general, but the first Man in particular, and more especially, and therefore must have taken place before the Flood. Cursed is the Ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy Life. See here, Adam himself, for whose sake the Earth had its Doom, was to experience the sad Effect of it by eating of the Fruits of the Ground in sorrow, that is, with labour and toil, the Ground not bringing sorth its Fruits with that ease, and in that plenty which it did before. The Curse then was inflicted in Adam's time, ••nd consequently before the Deluge. And unto Adam

himself the following words are directed, Thorns and Thistles shall it bring ••orth unto thee, and ••hou shalt eat the Herb of the Field, viz. with hard labour and pains, or (as 'tis express'd in the next Verse) IN THE SWEAT OF THY FACE; and this must con∣tinue until he return VNTO THE GROVND, OVT OF WHICH HE VAS TAKEN. And we know he return'd above 700 years before the Flood, and con∣sequently the Commination did affect that generation of Men which lived before that time.

And there is a farther proof of this in v. 23. There∣fore the Lord sent him forth from the Garden of Eden, to till the Ground from whence he was taken. This shews that the Curse had actually taken effect, and that Thorns and Thi••tles were come up; for Adam here is set on work, by the immediate Order of God himself, to root up those unprofitable Weeds, and other less useful Plants, and to apply himself to laborious Agriculture, this be∣ing now become necessary since his Apostacy, and since the denuntiation of the Curse, for unto this the word therefore in the beginning of the Verse re••ers: as much as if it had been said to Adam, Seeing the Earth is de∣prived of its former fruitfulness, seeing it will not for the future bring forth Food for Man without painful ••illage, and wearisome culture, therefore I send thee ••orth, &c. Here is a plain Instance of the actual in∣flicting of the Curse in our first Parents time, even long before the Universal Deluge. Wherefore I hope I shall prevail with this ingenious Author to aker his System of the Earth as to this particular, that he may avoid so considerable an Objection as this is, viz. That it is repugnant to the Sacred Writings, to which I know he pays a great Reverence. And besides, so far as I ap∣prehend, his general Syst••m can very well be without this particular Hypothesis. I take the freedom to sug∣gest this to one who seems to be made for great Disco∣veries in Natural Philosophy; and therefore out of that

friendship which I bear to him, and which he is pleas'd mutually to honour me with, I would not have them tinctured with the least disrespect to the Mosaick Writ∣ings, for this is enough to blast them in the esteem of those that are wise and sober.

But tho I cannot yield assent to this Gentleman's Hy∣pothesis as he hath laid It down; yet thus far I agree with him, that the Sentence before mention'd took not place in the most effectual manner till the time he assigns; it was not fully accomplish'd and executed till the De∣luge. That indeed was the Consummation of the Curse of Barrenness: then there was a more general Restraint and Decay of the Fruits of the Earth, caused by that destructive Inundation. But the Curse commenced be∣fore in part, as is clear from the express words of the Mosaick History. And therefore I take it for an im∣pregnable Truth, because it is founded on the Sacred Re∣cords, that the Earth was immediately curs'd upon Man's Fall, and that all the Creatures degenerated when he fell. The Earth, and Air, and other Elements be∣came disorder'd, and in some measure unwholesom, and sometimes fatal. Hence proceeded Dearth, Scar∣city, Pestilences, Earthquakes, Storms, Tempests, harmful Thunder and Lightning, Conflagrations, and all manner of Evils and Calamities. Man's Body, which was made of the Earth, participated of the Curse; whence floweth such a variety of Diseases and Distem∣pers, that the Masters of Medicks have not yet com∣pleated their Bill of Mortality, and given us a perfect Catalogue of the Maladies which infest us.

Another external Effect of Man's Fall, is the labour and trouble of this Life. Using Diligence and Labour in a lawful Calling is no Curse, for God set Adam to work even in the State of Innocence: but afterwards his Labour was attended with faintness and weariness, with pain and uneasiness, as in that formentioned place. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat Bread.

Which seems more particularly and especially to have re∣ference to the great labour which accompanies plowing and sowing, and gathering in of the Fruits of the Earth. For tho, it is true, part of Adam's employment in Pa∣radise was dressing the Ground, yet it cost him not any considerable labour then, it was not like the Husbandry which was afterwards, and is at present, viz. uneasy and toilsome by reason of the barrenness of the Ground. But in a larger and more extensive sense these words de∣note all the fatigue and pains which Men undergo in this World. It was the eating of the forbidden Fruit which was the cause of this eating in sorrow and sweat. Now innumerable hardships and distresses are the allot∣ment of Man's Life: Now Man is born to trouble, Job 5. 7. All his days are sorrow, and his travel grief, Eccles. 2. 23. Now the Earth is truly the Land of Labourers: Numberless poor people sweat and turmoil in getting a livelyhood, and even their Bodies are bow'd down sometimes with a burden: so the erect Figure of Man is partly impair'd. Who can recount the various Troubles and Afflictions of this mortal State? What a vast number of Calamities and Miseries is a Man liable to daily? How strangely is he beset with Crosses and Disasters at home and abroad, in his private and relative Capacity, in his Body, Mind, and all his Concerns? His Dominion over the Creatures is much diminished: Many of them being hard to be tamed and kept in subjection, many of them proving hurtful and mor∣tal.

He may lament the loss of another Dominion which is more considerable, I mean that which relates to that Sex over which God and Nature had given him a Com∣mand and Authority. And on the other side, the un∣due subjection of the Woman to her Husband, is the Curse and Punishment of the first Woman's Sin. Which I take to be the meaning of those words, Gen. 3. 16. Thy d••sire shall be to thy Husband, and he shall rule

over thee. It is true, she was under his Rule and Com∣mand even in Innocency, as was suggested before: There was then a Power and Preeminence in Man over the Woman, as the Apostle informs us 1 Cor. 11. 7, 8, 9. but they did not dispute this Superiority, they did not contend about it, for the Man did not exert his Power imperiously; and the Woman's subjection (call'd here her desire unto her Husband) was free and voluntary. But afterwards, this Obedience was forced and unwilling, and the Man's Dominion too often de∣generated into an arbitrary unreasonable sway. And that this is the meaning of this place is plain from the like words of God to Cain (to pacify his Wrath against his Brother Abel) unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him, Gen. 4. 7. that is, Abel is thy younger Brother, and shall be subject unto thee, and thou shalt have the superiority over him. So then the import of the foresaid words is this, that tho indeed Man, as being first created, had a superiority and pre∣eminence over the Woman, and should have yet had if they had stood in their Intergrity; yet now since the Fall the latter is oftentimes too indecently treated, whilst the former instead of claiming his just Preceden∣cy and Power, becomes inhuman and tyrannical.

A farther Curse on Womankind is that which is mention'd in Gen. 3. 16. I will greatly multiply thy sorrow▪ and thy conception: in sorrow thou shalt bring forth Children. Difficulty in Childbearing, bringing forth with pain, is the effect of the first Woman's trans∣gression: Whereas (as1 1.105 Aristotle observes) other Crea∣tures have not that uneasiness and torment in bringing ••orth their Young.

Thus both Sexes partake of the Evil which accrued by the first Apostacy. And wheresoever you look, you

may see the cursed Fruits of it: All things are out of order, and shatter'd by the Fall. That which the Apo∣stles were falsly accused for, viz. that they turned the World upside down, may truly be attributed to our first Parents: they have by their wil••ul disobedience pervert∣ed the Order of Nature, and disturbed the Course of the World. It is by their means become a Place of Dis∣order and Confusion, a Stage of Affliction and Misery, a Scene of Sorrows, Losses, Disappointments, Pover∣ty, Reproach, Diseases, Pains, Tortures and Plagues of all sorts. This is Man's portion till he returns unto the Ground; for out of it was he taken, and unto it he shall return, ver. 19.

Death is the last of all outward and bodily Evils: this was threatned in Gen. 2. 17. In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Which place alone is sufficient to refute the Socinian Conceit, that1 1.106 Man was mortal in his first state of Innocence, and that th•• he had not fallen, yet he should have died. We find here Mortality pronounc'd the Effect of Adam's Transgres∣sion, In the day that thou eatest of the fo••bidden Fruit, and thereby ••innest against thy Maker, thou shalt surely die, i. e. thou shalt immediately become subject to Death, and afterwards it shall actually be inflicted on thee. So we are to understand these words, according to that of Theodoret,2 1.107 God here call••th the Sentence of Mortality Death. And so Chrysost••m on the place;

Man is said (saith he) to die, in that the Sentence of Death is pronounc'd against him. It was God's Mercy to reprieve him, that he might have time to repent. But he was a dead Man at first, as a con∣demned Malefactor is reckon'd a dead Man, tho

his Execution be respi••ed for a time.

So is it with the whole Race of Adam, they are obnoxious to Death, they have the Sentence of it upon them, and they daily incur that Penalty by their Sins. The Great Judg is pleas'd to spare them for a time, but at last the Sen∣tence is executed on them. Their Nature being cor∣rupted and poison'd by the Fall, at length the Venom and Virulency of it break forth; the contrary Qualities, which have been long fighting within them, destroy them in the close; or in some other manner their Bo∣dies sink into the Grave, and stench and rottenness are their Portion.

The Inward and Spiritual Evils, which are the Con∣sequences of the Fall, are yet more grievous and dire∣ful. Not only the Bodies, but the Souls of all Adam's Race feel the cursed Effects of his Apostacy from God. Hereby the Rational and Divine Moiety of Man (which was the chief and noblest part of his Constitution) was corrupted, its original Rectitude and primitive Righ∣teousness were defaced, and all the Powers and Faculties of his Mind miserably depraved. First, His intellectual Powers are impaired by Ignorance and Error: the No∣tions of Good and Evil are much obliterated, Reason is weakned, and can hardly do its office. Man under∣standing not, must needs be like the Beasts, for it is this Faculty which differenceth him from that rank of Be∣ings. It was said of old,1 1.108 that Man is a wise Crea∣ture: And he was so questionless in the state of his first Creation, and Primitive Innocency; but since his vile Defection he is sunk into folly and sottishness. He confutes all his Pretences, and baffles all his Boastings of Knowledg and Wisdom; for when he should give experiment of them, he discovers plainly that he is

possessor of no such thing, but that his rational part is much enfeebled, and that he hath very ••alse and erro∣neous conceptions of things, especially of those which relate to the Kingdom of God. Thus Man's Head is hurt by the Fall.

His Heart likewise, his Will and Affections are ex∣ceedingly endamag'd by it. There is a strange Impo∣tency in our elective Faculty; we are not only disabled in a great measure from chusing Good, but we have an aversion in us to God and Goodness, and an inclinati∣on on the contrary to comply with Satan, and to do whatever is displeasing to our Marker. We1 1.109 are taken captive by Satan at his will: for we have lost our Liber∣ty, and we have not so much sense as to bemoan our loss. This is our condition by Nature, abstracted from the blessed Remedy which we have by Christ Iesus, and the powerful Influences of the Holy Spirit. As for our Affections and Passions, they are miserably dis••orted and dislocated, they continually sally forth to undue Objects, they are unruly and extravagant, and put us into great disorder and dis••raction. And indeed we cannot won∣der that they are very refractory and headstrong, when they have slipt off that Bridle which right Reason had put upon them. Our Love and Hatred, our Desires, our Fears, our Hopes, our Joys, our Anger, our Sor∣rows are all unbridled and ungovern'd; they hurry us into mischief, they fill us with perturbation, they make us uneasy, restless, and unquiet, and they end in vanity and vexation of Spirit. These disorders in the Under∣standing, Will and Affections, make way for more vi∣sible ones in the actions of mens Lives. Hence pro∣ceed Idolatry, Prophaneness, Blasphemy, Perjury, In∣justice, Theft, Rapine, Violence, Slaughter, Murder, Drunkenness, Luxury, Whoredom, and all kind of

Lasciviousness; in short, Sins of all degrees, Vices of all dimensions.

Thus it was rightly said by the Royal Prophet, that Man in his lapsed condition is become like the Beasts; he is sunk below his own Species. He that listned to a Brute (the Serpent) is become like one. Man, the Flower and Glory of the Creation, resembleth the Beasts. He is as sly and crafty as a Fox, as lustful and salacious as a Goat, as fierce as a Lion, as savage as a Bear, as ravenous as a Wolf, as gluttonous as a Swine, as angry and barking as a Dog, and sometimes as stupid and dull as an Ass. Thus Man is become like the Beasts. which this Psalmist takes notice of in other places likewise, where you find him representing wicked Men as1 1.110 fat Bulls,2 1.111 devouring Dragons,3 1.112 roaring Lions, 4 1.113 ravenous Dogs. And this good King acknowledgeth even concerning himself, that, so far as he had acted sinfully against God, he was not only foolish and igno∣rant, but even as a Beast before him. So Agur, i. e. as some think, Solomon, who had been a notorious Of∣fender, confesseth that he was more brutish than any one, Prov. 30. 2. The New Testament also speaks after this manner; Christ calls false Prophets5 1.114 ravenous Wolves, and6 1.115 Herod a Fox: And Iohn Baptist stiles the wicked Jews7 1.116 Vipers. St. Paul calls his Adversaries whom he grappled with at Ephesus,8 1.117 Beasts: he stiles false Teachers9 1.118 grievous Wolves, and10 1.119 Dogs: and he thanks God that he was delivered out of the Mouth of the11 1.120 Li∣on, meaning Nero. And the Apocalyptick Beast is to be understood of the vilest and wickedest Body of Men under Heaven. This too was the Notion and Phrase of

the best Moralist among the Platonists and Stoicks. They held that wicked men are a kind of Brutes, that Vice transforms them into mere sensitive Animals. The recti∣fied Mind, said they, is the Man, but the sensitive Ap∣petite is the Beast. This latter they declared to be the Principle which predominateth in all vicious Men: and because they wholly ••ollow their Sense, and are led mere∣ly by a corporeal Appetite, they resemble Brutes. Ac∣cordingly Epimenides calls the Cr••tians, evil Beasts, as the2 1.121 Apostle takes notice; and for the same reason all Persons that are given to Vice deserve that Denominati∣on. For their Portion, like Nebuchadnezzar's, is with the Beasts. You cannot reckon them in the number of Men, for tho they retain the human Shape, yet they are really degenerated into the nature of Brutes.

Nay, Man is become more irrational by far than the whole Herd of Brutes, who by a natural Instinct or by some certain Laws of Motion, following the Apprehen∣sions of their Senses, discern what is good or hurtful to them, and not only so, but imbrace the one, and avoid the other. Man alone, once the excellentest Creature in the World, but now depraved, knows not his Hap∣piness, or despises it. which in the sacred Stile is ex∣pressed after this manner, The Ox knows his Owner, and the As•• his Master's Crib, but Israel doth not know, my people do not consider, Isa. 1. 3. These are the in∣word and spiritual Evils which are the effects of Adam's Degeneracy, and they are usually called by Divines by the name of Spiritual Death; for these also were part of that dreadful Threatning, In the day thou ••atest thereof thou shalt surely die.

But there are not only temporal but eternal Evils which are the fruit of Man's Apostatizing. Man by his Guilt and Pollution contracted by the Fall, and since delighted

in, is liable to be excluded from Happiness in another Life, and is obnoxious to eternal Punishment and Misery in the World to come: for Sin of it self can never be ex∣piated, and therefore the Guilt of it must necessarily continue without any Period. Accordingly we read that the Wages of Sin is Death, Rom. 6. 23. i. e. eternal Death; for it being oppos'd in that place to eternal Life, it cannot signify less. It appears then that the Sinner deserves to be ••ormented both in Body and Soul with endless and eternal pains; which makes his Condition far worse than that of the Beasts, who Perish, and so are made uncapable of all future Sufferings, This is that worst of Deaths, which is another part of that dire••ul Threatning denounced against Adam, and which is the most grievous and terrible effect of his Disobedience and falling from God; and from this (as from the other Evils procured by Man's Apostacy) there is no redempti∣on on 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the merciful and meritorious Undertakings of the blessed Messias, who was afterwards promised.

After all, it might be observ'd, that not only Adam and Eve were threatned to be punish'd for this Trans∣gression, but even the Serpent, which the Devil made use of in order to it: he was rendred the most cursed of all Creatures, and condemn'd to grovel on his Belly, and to feed on the Dust of the Earth, Gen. 3. 14. Which was design'd to be a lasting, as well as a visible Memo∣rial of God's Displeasure against the first Sin in the World. So we read afterwards that God spared not the brut•• Beasts, whom the Sinners of the old world had abused, but destin'd them no less than the Offenders themselves to Destruction, Gen. 6. 7. which gives us some account of the implacable Opposition of the Di∣vine Nature to all Sin, and even to all that are but in∣strumental and serviceable to it. He that is of purer eyes than to behold Iniquity, will not suffer it to go unpunish'd wherever he observes it. And this might be added here, that the foresaid Curs•• on the Serpent hath reference also

to the malicious D••mon who actuated that Animal. The doom of this impure Spirit is here included; his being not able to raise up himself against the Servants of the most High, so as to hurt them; and his being 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to Hell, and his being made for ever a curs••d Creature, l••ath'd and abhor'd of God and Man, are comprehend∣ed in this Execration.

Thus I have finish'd the second State of Man. This I call a State as it respects Us, but I call it a Dispensation as it hath respect unto God, because it was his Will and Pleasure to suffer this to be. Out of infinite Wisdom he permitted Man's Fall, designing to make it subservi∣ent at last to the Good of Mankind, and to his own Glory, by inhansing his Mercy and Goodness in the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and unexpected rescuing of Mankind from the Miseries which they had incur'd by this general Lapse. I say ge∣neral; for as I asserted before concerning the first State, that of Innoc••ncy, that it included all Men in it as well as our first Progenitors, so I must declare the same concern∣ing this second State and Dispensation. It takes in not only Adam and Ev•• (who indeed were the most consp••∣cuous Persons) but all the succeeding Generations of Men and Women. For by reason of our first Parents wilful sinning and transgressing the Divine Law, all Persons are under the Displeasure of God, the Penalty of his Law, and the Power of Satan: for they are all conceived in Sin, and brought forth in Iniquity; they are naturally averse to all Good, and prone to all Evil, and therefore a Condemnation is justly pass'd on them all.

Here I might cop••ously treat of Original Sin, and the fatal Influence of it: but I intend not at present to en∣large on any main Article or Point of Divinity, this Treatise being design'd only as an 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to so great a Performance. This only in brief is to be remembred, that Adam, as a common Person, sinn'd for himself and his whole Posterity. In him all Mankind were created, and in him they all ••ell and were corrupted. Adam being

the Father and Root of all Successions, by his sinning involv'd himself and his Prog••ny into a State of Guilt and Enmity against God. This great Banker broke, and with him all his Race were beggar'd and ruin'd. His particular Fault became the Catholick Crime of all Per∣sons descended from him, even before they knew what was Good and Evil, i. e. before they were born. They were all accurs'd in him, and rendred obnoxious to the Divine Wrath, and no Creature was able to deliver them from it. But God, the merciful Creator and in∣dulgent Father of Mankind, was pleased to contrive their Deliverance. Accordingly he made an early Dis∣covery of his Grace and Love to our first Parents, and to their Posterity, which leads me to the next Dispen∣sation.

CHAP. III.

The Nature of the Third General Dispensation. The first part of which is the Adamick State. The early Promise concerning the Messias, Gen. 3. 15. explain'd. He was expected be∣times. The New Testament witnesses that he was to bruise the Serpent's Head. Several positive Laws were under this Oeconomy. That of Oblations and Sacrifices is especially consi∣der'd. Eucharistical Sacrifices were part of the Law of Nature. Expiatory and bloody ones were not so. Thence these latter were disap∣proved of by the wisest Heathens. They are ••ounded upon Divine Institution. The practice of Sacrificing among the Pagans was derived to them by Tradition from the Jews, or the fore∣going Patriarchs. Whether Sacrifices were pre∣scribed before or after the Fall of our First Pa∣rents. Concerning the Primitive Priesthood. The Distinction of clean and unclean Animals was in respect of Sacrificing, not Eating. Gen. 4. 26. explain'd, and a settled Church found∣ed upon it. Marrying with Infidels seems to b•• prohibited under this Dispensation. The Rise of Polygamy. The seven Precepts said to be given to the Sons of Adam and Noah. The Improbability of this Jewish Tradition evinced from several Considerations. The Mistakes of Volkelius and Episcopius concerning the Ante∣diluvian O••conomy.

THE Third General Dispensation is that of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Recovery through the M••ssia••. This is the most considerable State of all, and the most lasting: for it extends from Adam's Restauration to the end of the World. Now begins the Law of grace, and the Law of Faith, which makes this a new O••conomy. Now God's Will concerning Man's Redemption and the free Pardon of Sins was discover'd. Now, upon the Fall of Adam, and the Corruption of Mankind, and the for∣feiture of all Happiness, Life and Immortality are be∣stowed anew.1 1.122 To him that overcom••th, it is given to eat of the Tree of life, which is in the midst of the Pa∣radise of God. Deliverance here, and Eternal Life here∣after, are freely offer••d. Now God treateth with Man de novo, viz. by a Mediator. Now there was a New Covenant made between God and Adam, or rather be∣tween God and Mankind in him. The sum of the Co∣venant was this, that God on his part would shew Mer∣cy unto Adam and his Prosterity for the sake of the Mes∣sias, who was to die for their Sins, and that by virtue of his Satisfaction and Merit Man should be accepted. And on Man's part it was covenanted and promised by Adam, that they should believe in this Messias, and re∣ly upon his Undertakings and Merits, and faithfully per∣form all the other Conditions requir'd of them in those Laws which God publish'd to the World. This Cove∣nant of Grace succeeded in the room of the Covenant of Works made with Man in his State of Integrity: for he by his Fall breaking that Covenant, there was another enter'd into; and it is call'd the Covenant of Grace, be∣cause it is the result of the Divine Favor and Goodness: for on the violation of the first Covenant, Man became obnoxious to the Devine Displeasure, and might justly

have been left to perish in his Sin; but the Divine Mercy and Philanthropy exerted themselves in favor of Man∣kind, and graciously submitted to a n••w Cov••nant through the Mediator and Sponsor Christ Iesus, the Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World. This is the Cov••nant of Grace made with Mankind, of which I shall speak.

But let me remark this by the by, that tho this grand Revelation and Covenant constitute a new Oeconomy, yet the Administration of the Law of Nature still re∣mained. As natural Religion was of use before in the two other Oeconomies (for they were under the Law of Nature mix'd with some Revelutions) so now it c••aseth not. Tho Nature is corrupted, yet this Light is not ex∣tinguish'd. The Law of Nature written in Man's Heart at his Creation is still necessary and useful. This was imprinted on Men as they were created with rational Minds, and therefore this must last always, and it was made to do so▪ for it must conduct them as they are M••n, i. e. as they are indued with Principles of Reason. This goes through all the Particular Dispensations which I shall mention afterwards.

Having premised this, I come to speak of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 O••conomy of Grace, which contains in it all those Peri∣ods of Time which were from the discovery of the blessed Seed to Adam until the end of the World. This one great Disp••nsation of Grace comprehends under it these four particular and p••culiar ones 1. The Patri∣archal. 2. The M••s••ical or L••gal. 3. The G••ntil••. 4. The Christian or Evang••lical Dispensation.

〈◊〉〈◊〉 I begin first with the Patriarchal O••conomy, which is call'd so because it prevail'd in the Time when the old Patriarchs lived. Adam, N••ah, and Abraham, were the principal of them, and f••om them this O••conomy may be distinguished into three Periods, viz. the A••a∣mical, (for though the two former Dispensations may be ••ruly call'd Adamick•• as respecting both the innocent

and ••allen State of Adam; yet here I restrain the term to that particular part of God's Dispensation, which was in this first Patriarch's time, from his blessed Recovery till his leaving the World: and it comprehends what∣ever things the Holy Scripture hath mention'd as proper to him and his immediate Posterity till the Flood) the Noachical, and the Abrahamick. The first commenceth with the discovery of the Messias made to Adam, and lasteth till Noah: the second begins with Noah, and the Confirmation of the Covenant of Grace made to him: the third takes place from the renewing of it to Abraham.

The first Patriarchal Dispensation, call'd Adamical and Antediluvian, began with that signal Promise con∣cerning the M••ssias in Gen. 3. 15. I will put Enmity be∣tween thee and the Woman, and between thy Seed and her Seed. It shall bruise thy Head, and thou shalt bruise his Heel. It is true, this may be meant of the natural Brood of Serpents, and of all the Woman's Offspring, namely, there shall be a great Antipathy between those and these. Who seeth not that there is a natural Enmi∣ty between the Serpent and Man? The former is ready with his venomous Sting to hurt Mankind; he may be said to bruise their Heel, for this Creature being on the ground, can more easily come at that part, and i••jure it. Therefore Man is afraid of him, and f••eeth from him; but, if he hath an opportunity, he crusheth him, he bruiseth his Head, he destroyeth him. Thus the Iews generally interpret this Text, viz. of the i••bred Antipathy between the natur••l Serpent and all Mankind. But tho this be the literal and most obviou•• Sense of the words, yet it is not the primary one. For there is ano∣ther and higher meaning of them, and that is this; by the Serpent is meant the Devil, because he enter'd into the Serpent, and appea••'d in that Shape when he tempt∣ed Eve: and by the Seed of the Woman is mean•• Christ, who is signally said to be made of a Woman, Gal. 4. 4.

in contradistinction to others who are made of Man, and are the Seed of Man. There is an irreconcileable En∣mity and Hostility between thes•• two, Christ and Satan. This latter shews his Enmity in bruising the Heel of the other, in persecuting him and his Followers; but the former shall shew his Antipathy in bruising the others Head, i. ••. in utterly destroying his Power and Domini∣on. Here then is the Promise of Christ's coming in the Flesh, of the Son of God assuming our Nature, and thereby redressing the Evils which came by the Fall, and by his meritorious Death making Atonement for the Sins of Men, and reconciling them to the incens'd Ma∣jesty of Heaven. And it is here included that even before he was incarnate, the Merit of his future Suffe••ings and Death should in all Ages be imputed to those who be∣lieve in him, and look for his Coming. For he is the Lamb slain from the beginning of the World, he was ap∣pointed from Eternity to redeem and save lost Mankind by the effusion of his precious Blood. This is the pur∣port of this gracious Promis•• made to Adam in Paradise: this was the fi••st dawning of the Gospel-Light, here were the first Tidings of a M••ssia••.

Some of the Church of Rom•• understand this Promise concerning the Virgin Mary; the Vulgar Latin have render'd it ips••, she shall bruis•• thy Head: and hence it is inferr'd by Tiri••us and others on the place, that that Pronoun refers to a Woman, and that Woman is the Vir∣gin Mary, who bringing forth Christ, bruised the Ser∣pent's Head. But these Men must be reminded that the H••br••w word which we translate It, is not hi, but 〈◊〉〈◊〉, not she but 〈◊〉〈◊〉 However, being of the Masculine Gen∣der, it must needs re••er to the word before, which is of the same Gender•• and that is Z••rang, the S••••d, viz. the Seed of the Woman, which is Christ. The Law•• of Grammar forbid us to render it she, and the Laws of the Christian Religion forbid us to apply it to the Virgin Mary, seeing it is the proper Work of the M••ssia•• to

bruise and break the Serpent's Head, i. e. to destroy Sa∣tan. This Interpretation then we quit, not only as it is ungrammatical, but as it is profane, and blasphemously derogates from the Office and Undertakings of Christ. Of him alone we ought to understand these words, to him only we can with good reason apply them.

Thus without doubt they were understood by our First Parents, and administred unspeakable Solace and Comfort to them. Hence the Messia•• was daily expected by them, and when Eve was deliver'd of her first-born Son, she thought verily she had brought forth the M••ssi∣a••, who should bruise the Serpent's Head. I have got∣ten (••aith she) a Man from the Lord, or (according to the Hebrew)1 1.123 the Man the Lord. Not only the Iew∣ish, especially the Cabalistick Doctors, but2 1.124 some wor∣thy Persons of the Christian Perswasion read the words thus, and interpret them concerning the Blessed Seed. Helvicus hath shew'd that Eth is an Article of the Accu∣sative Cas••, and he doth it in so many Instances in Scrip∣ture, that it seems to be the Hebr••w Idiom. And be∣sides, it is a demonstrative or ••mphatick Particle, and points at some Thing or Person in a signal manner. So here it emphatically refers to the M••ssia••, who was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, both Man and God. Our Grandmother Ev•• was in hopes that she had born this God-man, that Per∣son who was to bruise Sa••an's Head, according to the Promise made to them.

It is not wholly improbable that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 also per∣swaded himself that his Son Noah should be the Messias, and take away the Curse of the Fall, and bring a Bles∣sing with him, and comfort the distressed World, and give it Rest and Ease; and therefore he named him Noah, which signifies both Rest and Consolation. There was

without question a continual expectation of the Coming of this Person, and of the ful••illing of that Promise con∣cerning his destroying of Satan. The seventy Inter∣preters understood that Text of the Messias, which oc∣casion'd their making the masculine 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to answer to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the Neu••er Gender, as the Apostle also doth, Gal. 3. 16. And all the anti••nt Iews understood this Promise of the blessed Seed Christ, tho the Moderns do not. You will find it thus applied by both the Targums.

And the New Testament approves of this, by bear∣ing witness that Christ is the Person who ••ruis••s the Serpent's Head. He took Flesh and Blood, that through Death he might destroy him that had the Power of Death, that is, the D••vil, Heb. 2. 14. To this purpose the Son of God was manifest••d, that he might destroy the Works of the Devil, 1 John 3. 8. and Luke 10. 18. Iohn 12. 31. and 14. 30. with many other places, declare that this was he who was to bruise Satan under our feet. This is the Scope of the whole Gospel, and this is that Gospel which was preached by God in Paradis••. When Adam, and in him all Mankind, aposta••ized from God, and could expect nothing but the Reward of their Rebellion, and therefore might have abandon'd themselves to utter De∣spair, God reviv'd them with this Promise of the M••s∣sias, The Seed of the Woman shall bruis•• the S••rp••nt's Head. God the Father so loved the World, that he re∣solved to give to his Only Son to be their Redeemer; who being the Eternal Wisdom and Word of God, and so truly God, and one in Essence with the Father, was in due time to assume our Nature, and become Man, there∣by to transact the Redemption of lost Mankind, and ac∣complish the Designs of Grace and Mercy to undone Sinners. Which tho it be not expresly on this occasion set down in the M••saick History, yet other passages of Sacred Scripture assure us that it was so; and that the Second Pers••n in the S••cred Trini••y undertook to pacify the Wrath of the Dei••y, and to reconcile Man unto God,

and to accomplish the New Covenant made with Adam and his Posterity, even a Covenant of Grace and Mercy through his Blood. Having thus shew'd the main thing in this Dispensation, I must in the next place acquaint you what other considerable things made up this par∣ticular Oeconomy and Administration of the Al∣mighty.

A••ter this grand Revelation and Discovery made to Adam and Eve concerning the Messias to come, there were several positive Precepts and Laws given to them and their Children. Some reckon that as one, that the Woman should be subject to the Man, He shall rule o∣ver thee, Gen. 3. 16. For these words, they say, may contain, not only a Threatning, but a Command. Here is not only signified the Punishment consequent on the Fall, that the Husband should imperiously rule over the Woman (which we mention'd before) but here is enjoyn'd the subjection of the latter to the former, this being now become requisite in the state that Men and Women are in. And tho it was a Curse to be tyran∣nically ruled, tho a servile subjection was the Conse∣quent of the Fall, yet now it is a Duty to be freely sub∣missive, and with it goes a Blessing.

That also may be look'd upon as another positiv•• Law, that Men should labour. For tho those words, In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat Bread, Gen. 3. 19. carry the nature of a Commination and Curse, so far as Man's Labour is with uneasiness, trouble and pain, yet▪ they may likewise be understood in the way of a Precept, in as much as Labour and Diligence in •• lawful Calling are useful and necessary in this present State, and are indeed of the Law of Nature and Rea∣son, tho they are here made Positive, as I have hereto∣fore shew'd that these two are not inconsistent.

Moreover, under this Dispensation the Marriag•• of Parents and Children, (which was also against the Law of Nature) was forbid by God, Gen. 2. 24. And it is

not improbable that there was a particular prohibition from God, that none who were near by Nature and Blood, should be joined together in Marriage: for al∣tho at first it was absolutely necessary in order to Pro∣pagation, that the Brother should marry the Sister; yet when this Necessity was removed, we read that they observed the Laws of Consanguinity and Propin∣quity.

The next thing I take notice of must be more large∣ly insisted upon, viz. That Oblations and Sacrifices were the Religion of the People of this Adamick Dispensa∣tion. Sacrificing and Offering are sometimes ••aken as synonymous: When they offered up the Fruits of the Earth, and other things, they might be said to sacri∣fice. Therefore P••rphyri••••1 1.125 distinguisheth between bloody and unbloody Sacrifices: the former were of the Fruits of the Ground, the latter were of living Crea∣tures. Of both these we read in Gen. 4. 3, 4. where it is said that Cain ••ffer'd of the Fruit of the Ground, Abel of the Firstlings of his Flock. Both these, viz. the Oblations of first Fruits, and the Sacrifices of Beasts were constantly observ'd by the Antediluvian Patriarchs. The question is, Whether this kind of Worship was natural, or by divine Command. As for the offering the First-fruits of the Earth unto God, St. Chrysostom gives his Judgment thus, Cain had no Law concerning these, but2 1.126 merely of himself, and by the incit••ment of his own Conscience, offer'd this ••ort of Oblation. And so others afterwards offer'd their First-fruits unto God as an acknowledgment that they receiv'd those and all other good things from him. They were grateful Re∣cognitions of the Almighty's Soveraign••y, and of their

dependance upon him. These Annual Oblations were owning the year's Income, and the Mercies of all their Life to be from God. By these first Fruits they ac∣knowledg'd him the Author of all, that particularly he was the Owner of the Soil whence those Fruits came, and that a Blessing and Increase were to be expected on∣ly from him.

The best and most precious things that God bestoweth on us, ••aith3 1.127 Porphyriu••, are the Fruits of the Earth: therefore with these we ought to worship God; and these he calls the Natural Wor∣ship of a Deity.

There needed not a Command of God for these; for the Law of Nature dictated this kind of Oblations, tho it may be there was a Divine Com∣mand added to inforce the Natural Dictate.

As for the other sort of Offerings, and which Por∣phyry calls Bloody Sacrifices, the killing of Beasts, and offering them up to God, there is some Controversy (and that not undeservedly) about these. It is dis∣puted whether Abel and those before Noah offer'd this kind of Sacrifice by any natural Reason mov∣ing them to it, or by God's Institution and Command; whether it was done by the mere Light of Nature, or by Revelation. •• There are Learned Writer•• on both sides. Iustin Martyr (or whoever was the A••thor of the Questions and Answers to the Orthodox) is very peremptory: None of those (saith he) who offer'd Brutes as a Sacrifice to God before ••he Law, did it4 1.128 by Divine Order. Then according to him all of them did it by some Natural Instinct, and Dictate of Reason. And so say other 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and several of the Rabbins: So say5 1.129 Be••••armine, Suarez, Aquinas, and most of the

Papists. So say Soci••us and his Followers; and for this Reason, that those Sacrifices may not be thought to be the Representations of the Sacrifice of Christ, which without doubt was the chief end of the instituting of Sacrifices. Some of other Perswasions likewise agree in this Tenent, that Sacrifices (i. e. the killing and of∣fering of Beasts) were by the Law of Nature. But these are contradicted by others, both Papists and Pro∣testants, who confidently aver, that these Sacrifices were by the special Injunction of God, and did not proceed from any natural Notions and Principles which they had.

Now, it is my desire here (as 'tis in all other Cases) to reconcile dissenting and disputing Men: which may effectually be done, by leading them off from their Ex∣tremes which they adhere to. In my judgment neither to these Parties are in the right, not those who say all Sacrifices are by the Law of Nature, nor those who as∣sert that all of them must needs be by Divine Revelati∣on. There is a middle way between these, which I take to be the true one, viz. that both Natural Reason, and Supernatural Revelation concur'd here. Reason taught them to offer some Sacrifices, and a positive Word from God (tho not express'd by Mos••s) taught them to offer others. I must remind you then, that Sacrifices were either Eucharistical or Expiatory, that is, they were either offer'd to God in way of thankful acknow∣ledgment, or to atone and expiate for their Sins. The former of these, I conceive, were dictated by the Light of Nature, but the latter were wholly or partly from God.

First, I say, the offering of Eucharistical Sacrifices was part of the Law of Nature: for Reason would teach them to offer their Flocks as well as their Fruits to God. These, no less than the other, were Acknow∣ledgments, they were owning of God's Dominion and Soveraignty. As Cain, a Husbandman, offer'd by the

mere instinct of Nature the Fruits of the Ground as an Acknowledgment that God was his Benefactor; so the same Principle moved Abel a Shepherd, to offer the first of his Flock in way of Recognition, that God be∣stow'd those good things upon him. Yea, Abel by the only instinct of right Reason, judged that God was to be worshipped with the best things, and that the Sacri∣fices ought to be of the fattest of the Flock. I do not think Minutius Felix discourseth and argueth closely, when to the Gentiles, who objected against the Christi∣ans that they had no Altars and Sacrifices, he replieth thus;

Shall we offer Sacrifices and Oblations to God, which he gave us on purpose for our use and service? It is Ingratitude to return him Gifts again.

And Arnobius saith the same, in answer to the same Ob∣jection, but with as little reason:

It is madness (saith he) to measure God by our Needs, and to give the things that are useful to us, to God who is the giver of them.

But this was a great mistake; there was no madness in doing this, but a great deal of reason and sobriety: For natural Gratitude directed them to give something to God: therefore Sacrifices are called Gifts in the Holy Scripture, particularly Abel's Offering is stiled a Gift, Heb. 11. 4. and so the Mosaick Sacrifices are call'd Corban, i. e. a Gift, Mat. 5. 23 24. The Law of Thankfulness, which is a Law of Nature, taught the Antient Patriarchs to offer these Gifts as Tokens and Testimonies of their Gratitude. By these they openly proclaim'd, that God was the supreme Giver of all things. Natural Light inform'd them, that it was fit∣ting to make some Returns to God, to give something to him from whom they receiv'd all. They needed not a particular Command from God for this: These were spontaneous, free and uncommanded Offerings, these were dictated by Reason, and the voluntary Mo∣tions of their Hearts, which told them that they ought to acknowledg God's Goodness to them by such gra∣tulatory

Sacrifices. These were but so many Acts of Thanksgiving to God for Benefits and Favours receiv'd of him, and were but natural Signs of Worship due to him. But,

Secondly, Besides the Eucharistical Sacrifices, there were Expiatory ones: But these were not the Dictates of Natural Reason; for tho the Patriarchs might per∣swade themselves that those Sacrifices being thankful Acknowledgments and Gifts would be acceptable to God, that he would receive them kindly, and be pleas'd not to shew himself angry and offended for their for∣mer Miscarriages; yet this they might as well have thought to have been done by the unbloody Sacrifices, the offering of the Fruits of the Earth: for they being Gifts as well as these, those that offer'd them might ex∣pect that God would be pleas'd with them, and that thereby they should conciliate the Divine Favor and Ac∣ceptance, and so that there should be an Expiation made for their Sine. Thus the unbloody sort of Sacrifices would have been sufficient, and there is no reason why the bloody ones should be added. No truly, Nature could afford them no substantial Reason why the Blood of Beasts should be shed. Reason doth not tell us that God is delighted in the Blood and Pain of the innocent Brutes. Reason doth not acquaint us that the offering of these is a satisfaction to his Justice, and a means to avert the Judgments of God. there is no Law of Na∣ture that dictates any such thing.

Hence the sacrificing of the Beasts was condemned by the wisest Men among the Heathens. What saith Por∣phyrius? (and by him you may know what the Pytha∣goreans thought and held, for he was a principal Man of that Sect;)6 1.130

As for sacrificing of Beasts and Blood (saith he) that was not from the beginning.

but introduced lately by superstitious and wicked Persons. Bloody Sacrifices commenced from Famine and War, when People were forced to tast Blood. When they had tasted of the Blood of Animals, they sacrificed them to the Gods.

Again, saith he, in the same place,

As they sacrificed, so they eat: Flesh was at first not eaten; afterwards that being sacrifi∣ced, they eat it, for they reckon'd what was good for their Gods, was good for themselves; so from ••••ating they proceeded to offer.

Thus this Philoso∣pher was mistaken about the first Original of bloody Sacrifices: and it could not be expected that he should attain to the true Reason of it, which (as I shall shew you) is the grand bottom of revealed Religion. But this Testimony of Porphyrius confirmeth what I am asserting, viz. that bloody Sacrificing was not the Dic∣tate or Precept of Nature. Had it been so, this Person, who was so well versed in the Law of Nature and Rea∣son, would not have inveighed against this kind of Sa∣crificing, as not becoming God nor Men, as having no Reason nor Religion to justify it. He would not have told us in plain terms, that God is by no means de∣lighted in the Blood of Beasts, and that this manner of Sacrificing was discountenanced and disapproved by the Oracles, as he relateth.

Let us hear what other Heathens thought of the bloody Sacrifices. It is impious to pollute Altars with Blood, saith1 1.131 Plato: Who concurreth with Pythagor••s in this as well as in many other things. Varro, quoted by Arnobius, declareth,

That the true Gods neither desire nor expect these Sacrifices, and the false Gods made of Brass and Wood do less care for them.

From Tertullian we learn that the Philosophers had no

good opinion of Sacrifices, and2 1.132 never were urgent with the People to offer them. The best Heathen Mo∣ralists profess'd, that the only acceptable Offerings were 3 1.133 a pious Heart and an upright Will. Some of the Po∣ets have slighted and disparaged the offering of slain Beasts in Sacrifice.4 1.134 Ovid is of this number, and more∣over tells us, that5 1.135 bloody Sacrifices were not in the more Innocent and Primitive Ages of the World. Which tho it be false, yet it shews the Sentiment of this and other wise Men, who had no good opinion of this kind of Sacrifices. Among the Egyptians, who were the wisest of the Antient Nations, no Animals were kill'd for Sacrifice to the Gods, saith Macrobius.

Do you think now that the gravest and wisest Hea∣thens would have disapproved of and condemned Sacri∣fices, if they had been a Dictate of Nature and Mora∣lity, if they had been the Natural Worship of God? Would they not rather have defended and maintain'd them? for natural Religion, and the main Offices of it, are extoll'd by none more than them. But as they were bloody Sacrifices, there was no Principle in Nature and Reason to commend them: and thence it is that the wisest Pagans never spoke seriously for them, but ge∣nerally against them; and they were of the opinion that God was not honour'd by the Blood of Brutes, and the killing of harmless Beasts; and that he took no pleasure in the Smoke that ascended from their slain Bo∣dies. It is evident then, that bloody Sacrificing, as it denoteth Atonement and Propitiating, was not the re∣sult

of Natural Light, but was by positive and Divine Institution. And from what was known hence, there came to be even among the Pagans a Notion of Expia∣tion by sacrificing, which we find in several of their Writings: but they had not of themselves any such ap∣prehension.

This I prove from the Reason which Moses, or ra∣ther the Lord by Moses, giveth of bloody Sacrifices, Le∣vit. 17. 11. The Life of the Flesh is in the Blood, and I have given it to you on the Altar, to make an Atone∣ment for your Souls, for it is the Blood that makes Atone∣ment for the Soul. Tho this Reason of offering the Blood of slain Beasts was divulged to the Israelites at this particular time, yet this reason was good at first, and was the true account of the Service of Bloody Sa∣crifices among the Patriarchs. Now the Reason here given why these Sacrifices are to be used, is, because it is the Blood that makes Atonement for the Soul. And if you ask the Reason of this, it is implied in the begin∣ning of the Verse before recited, the Life of the Flesh is in the Blood: So then when the Blood of the Beast is of∣fer'd in Sacrifice, the Life of it is offer'd; and the Life of the Beast is supposed to be given instead of the Life of the Offender, for whom the Sacrifice is offered: and so the Beast was slain instead of the Person that offend∣ed. This was the intent and meaning of Bloody Sa∣crifices.

But this Divine Significations of them was not the issue of Natural Reason. Did this tell them that the Blood of beasts was an Atonement for the Souls of men, that the blood of slain animals on the altar, signified that men deserved to bleed and die? Did this tell them that the blood of Brutes was poured forth instead of the blood of Men? that Sacrisicing was an Acknowledg∣ment of Demerit and Guilt, and that he that kill'd the Beast did as much as confess he deserved to be so used? It must be from Revelation at first that they had a par∣ticular

and distinct knowledg of this, that God would accept of a Sacrifice in the place of the Guilty Sinner. Natural light could not make this out: much less could it discover that these Sacrifices were Representations and Types of the Great Sacrifice which was to come; that they shadowed our Christ the Redeemer who was to be sacrificed on the Cross, and to shed his Blood for the Sal∣vation of Mankind. This was the main thing which those Sacrifices represented. God instituted them chief∣ly to intimate the translating of our punishment on our Redeemer, and to signifie the great bloody Sacrifice of the Messias which is truly Propitiatory. It was then by Divine Revelation discover'd to our first Parents, and to the Antient Patriarchs, that offering the blood of slain Beasts would be an acceptable service to God: and here∣upon they constantly used themselves to this service and worship.

But you will say, Expiatory and Bloody Sacrificing hath been in use among all Nations, not only Iews, but Greeks, Romans, Barbarians, and even the whole Gen∣tile World. If they knew nothing of this by the light of Nature, how came they to use this sort of Sacrifice constantly? How came some of them to have this notion, that the Beasts bled in their stead? I answer, it was de∣rived to the Gentiles by Tradition: they receiv'd it from those who had it first by Supernatural Manifestation. Hence they got the notion of Expiatory Sacrifices (as well as of some other things, as I could shew you) they were transmitted to them from the practice of the Iews: or if any of the Gentiles had this perswasion before, they receiv'd it by Tradition from their Forefathers, who had it from the Father of all, Adam, who had it from God by particular Revelation. And this seems to be con∣firm'd by the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, chap. 11. 4. By faith Abel offered unto God a more ex∣cellent Sacrifice than Cain. If he sacrificed by Faith (as that word may be well understood here) there was some

Warrant and Word of God for it, for Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God, Rom. 10. 17. Faith is grounded on some Word, it relyeth on a Divine Command, or Promise. Therefore when Abel offered of the fat of his flock in Sacrifice, he did that which was instituted by God, and consequently that sort of Sacri∣fices was by Divine Institution, there was a precept for it. Adam and his Sons had a particular Order from God, though it is not recorded by Moses, neither was it ne∣cessary it should be in so short an Account as he intended of things.

Take the Sum of all in few words: This Law of Sacrifices, which was in use in the Adamick Oecono∣my, was partly Natural and partly Divine. As Sacrifi∣ces were tokens of Thankfulness, and Acknowledg∣ments that as they receiv'd the fruits of the Earth and all other inanimate good things from God, so the Animals which they sacrificed, and all other living creatures for the use and benefit of man, were given them by the same Divine hand; thus they were a Service dictated by Natural Reason, and so were natural acts of Worship: but as they carry'd with them the notion of Expiation and Atonement for the Souls of men, but especially as they refer'd to the Messias, and signified the future Sacrifice of Christ, and so were to strengthen and support their faith till that time, thus it is certain they were instituted by God, and the practice of them was founded on a Divine Command: and the Patriarchs knew they would be ac∣ceptable to God, because they were of his own Appoint∣ment.

It may be asked, (as it is a question among Writers) whether Sacrifices were prescribed before or after the Fall of Adam? Here they are divided (as the manner is) and some say they were instituted before, and others say after the Fall. But I have made way for a more satis∣factory Answer to this Query by the distinction of Bloody and Vnbloody Sacrifices, and of Propitiatory and Eucha∣ristical

Sacrifices. Unbloody Sacrifices, and such as are meerly Eucharistical, i. e. such as were natural To∣kens of Thanksgiving for benefits received, were used, it is likely, by Adam before his Fall: (which I intima∣ted under that Oeconomy) these might begin in Para∣dise. But these Sacrifices needed not to be prescribed them by God, because they were a part of Natural Re∣ligion and Worship. But as for Bloody Sacrifices, I mean such as were Expiatory, they were not instituted by God till after the Fall: For when there was no Sin, there was no need of Expiation.

Priesthood goes along with Sacrificing, and therefore it were pertinent to say something of that here. Adam was the first Priest and Sacrificer: but now under this Dispensation it is expresly recorded, that Cain made an oblation of the fruits of the Earth, and Abel offered the firstlings of his flock to God. The Priestly Office is hi∣therto but obscure, and no particular Persons are assign'd and appointed by God to act in it. This we know that Abel, the younger brother, was the proper Sacrificer, and acted the part of a Priest, which was to stay and offer Living Creatures unto God; but what the practice was afterwards in the sequel of this Dispensation is not set down by Moses, and therefore was cannot determine any thing. But in the other following Patriarchal Dispensa∣tions, we find that the Domestick Sacrifices belonging to the Family (for of publick Sacrificing we read nothing yet) were offered by the Fathers and Masters of Families generally, as by Noab (Gen. 8. 20.) Abraham (Gen. 12. 7.) Iacob (Gen. 35. 3, 7.) It is the opinion of Sel∣den, Grotius, and others, that the Sacerdotal Dignity re∣sided in the First-born before Moses's time, and that the Primogeniture and Priesthood went together. Nay, they add Kingship or Magistracy to these, asserting that the First-born among the Patriarchs were Princes as well as Priests. And so indeed Cohen, which is the word for a Priest, signifies also a Prince or Ruler (as in Iob.

12. 19. 2 Sam. 8. 18. & 20. 26.) and such were the Heads and Fathers of Families, and the First-born of old. But though it is true the Priesthood was exercised by the chief Heads and Fathers of Families, and by the First-born Sons, yet we likewise read of Priests or Sacrificers who were younger Brothers, as Abel and Iacob, Gen. 4. 4. & 28. 18. & 46. 1. Whence I gather that was not the sole Prerogative of the First-born before the Mosaick Law: For if the younger Brothers offer'd as well as the Elder, the Office of Priest was not confin'd to the Primo∣geniture. The Sum then of all is this, that before the Priesthood, was setled by the Law of Moses, the First-born were Priests, that is, generally and for the most part, but not always, for some instances there are of others that offer'd Sacrifices. So that this middle way which I have taken may decide the Controversie that hath been among some Learned Writers, viz. whether the Priesthood at first resided altogether in the First-born?

In the next place, the Difference of Clean and Vnclean Animals was part of this Dispensation. We read of the Distinction between these first of all in Gen. 7. 2. where Noah is commanded by God to put up in the Ark seven pair of Clean, and two pair of Vnclean Creatures. Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female; and of beasts that are not clean, by two, the male and his female. This account of the number of the Beasts taken into the Ark, may seem to differ from what is said in Gen. 6. 19. Of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the Ark; and in Gen. 7. 9. There went in two and two into the Ark, the male and the female. But by comparing the former of these Texts with the foresaid place, we shall find that it is only a general account of bringing the beasts into the Ark, viz. by pairs, a male and a female of every sort of living creatures. But that place which I first produced speaks particularly, and spe∣cifics the number of the pairs, i. e. seven pair of clean

beasts, and two pair of unclean. For whereas some have thought that of clean animals seven only of a sort entred the Ark, it is evident from the Original that they are mistaken, for the Hebrew word Shibgnah is repeated, to signifie that there were two seven, i. e. seven males and seven females taken into the Ark, that they might have enough for Sacrifice and Food after the flood. And as for the latter place, that also speaks of all the Creatures whether clean or not clean (as you will see in ver 8.) and is to be understood of the man∣ner of their going into the Ark: they went by couples (and here by the way observe, that if there were only seven, they could not go by Couples) but this order of their march contradicts not what hath been said, and is plainly gather'd from the other Text, viz. that 7 males and 7 females in all of the clean Beasts were preserved in that Receptacle. Having thus clear'd the Text (which hath been misunderstood) I come to the matter in hand.

Some think these Beasts are call'd Clean or Vnclean by a Prolepsis: as much as to say, some Beasts went then into the Ark, which now since that time are reputed Clean; and others went in which are now reckon'd Unclean. Moses calls them Clean or Unclean, because there was that distinction of Animals in his time. Thus Rabbi Solomon on the place tells us,

that That is called Clean which was afterwards to be Clean: Whence we learn (saith he) that Noah at that time knew the Law.

For it is a fancy of the Rabbins and Talmudical Doctors, that the Mosaical Law was made, and existed before the World was. But this Historical Anticipation will not serve the turn here (though at some other times I grant it is useful) for you may observe there is a Reason in∣cluded in the forementioned words, why Noah was to shut up in the Ark more of one sort of Animals than of another, viz. because at that time some were Clean and others Vnclean. Wherefore did God order him to take fourteen of one sort of living creatures, and but four of

another? Was there not a reason for this disparity? And what can we imagin it to be but this, that the creatures were of a different nature, i. e. (as 'tis here expresly said) that some of them were Clean, and others not? And this was before Noah's time, for this is supposed here as a thing well known.

But how is this to be understood? No creatures are Naturally Vnclean: they are all Clean, and Pure, and Good from the first Creation. In what sense then are any said to be Vnclean? It is certain this Distinction could not be in regard of Eating, for no Animals were eaten before the Flood (as shall be proved anon) but it is reasonable to think that it was with respect to the Sa∣crifices, that they were call'd Clean or Unclean: And if you consult Gen. 8. 20. you will see that this is spoken with particular reference to Sacrifices. Noah made use of clean Beasts and Fowls in Sacrificing, and whoever sacrificed then, did so. They did not sacrifice all sorts of Creatures, but some only. They look'd upon some Animals, in respect of others, as unfit for Sacri∣fice: they offer'd to God the best, or what they thought so, as the Sheep, and not the Hog, &c. This was founded in their natural Reason, as Sacrifices themselves partly were. These Animals which at that time they esteemed the best and choicest, and fittest for Sacrifice, were reputed Clean and Pure, and were call'd so: And on the contrary, the meanest and worst Animals, and which they thought unfit for Sacrifice, were reckon'd as Impure and Vnclean, and were so called. And it is like∣ly there was also a Positive Law for this as well as Sa∣crifices. By this Law such and such Creatures were de∣termin'd to be Clean our Unclean: and this Law was be∣fore that of Moses, yea it was long before the Flood▪ Even then Beasts were call'd Clean or Vnclean in respect of Sacrificing, as afterward they were call'd so in respect of Eating.

We may observe further that there was a Publick Set∣led

Church in the days of those renowned and godly Pa∣triarchs Seth and Enos. Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord, Gen. 4. 26. I know there is a con∣trary reading of these words, for some think that huchal signifies prophaned as well as began, and accordingly they render the words thus, Then men prophaned by calling on the name of the Lord. So the Iewish Writers generally interpret this place, and particularly the Chalde•• Para∣phrast and Rabbi Solomon Iarchi understand it. Whence 1 1.136 Mr. Selden infers that there was Idolatry in those days, and that it was set up then first of all. But these lear∣ned persons considered not that the verb Chalal as it is here used, i. e. in the Conjugation Hophal, and with an Infinitive Verb after it, is never us'd in Scripture to sig∣nifie prophaning but beginning. Nor did these Writers give themselves time to remember that this place speaks of Seth and his godly Family, and not of any Idolaters (yea it is likely there was no such thing as Idolatry in those days, but that its date was afterwards) and there∣fore it must be meant of Religious Invoking of God, and the solemn use of it. There are others, who though they are satisfied that the word is to be rendred began (not prophaned) yet understand what follows according to2 1.137 Aquila's Translation, and therefore read the whole thus, Then men began to be call'd by the name of the Lord, i. e. Seth and Enos for their great Piety were the first that had the honour as it were of a Divine Appellation, whence they that were their Offspring were call'd the Son of God; or they were call'd by Gods names, i. e. they were reputed and celebrated as eminent Worshippers of God, as his profess'd Servants and Votaries. But this seems to be a forc'd Interpretation, and is built upon a wrong Translation of the words.

The plain and genuine meaning (both according to the Original, the Seventy, and other Versions which are held to be most exact) is this, that though Adam, Ab••l, Seth, and others had called on God in their Hou∣ses and Families long before this time, yet now they met together publickly, and the Rites of Religion which God had appointed them were fixed. Here is the first Infancy of the more visible Church. Now Holy Assem∣blies are set up; and perhaps as Cain then built Cities, so Enos built Temples or Places for Divine Worship. Sacrifices were setled before: Now the way and manner of invoking God aright are established. Or, if you will take Calling on the Lord as a general expression for Re∣ligion, then the meaning is, that in the time of these holy men, the true VVorship and Service of God begun to flourish openly. Though Cain and his Seed liv'd athe∣istically and prophanely, yet those of the Family of Seth and Enos promoted all Piety and Virtue, they general∣ly ••eared God, and walked uprightly, and Religion was in great esteem among men.

There seems to have been a Law under this Patriar∣chal Period, not to marry with Infidels. This is im∣plied in Gen. 6. 2. The sons of God saw the daught••rs of men, and they took them Wives of all that they chose. The children of Seth were joyned in wedlock with the wicked posterity of Cain, which we have reason to think was forbidden them, because this is reckon'd as the great sin which provoked God's wrath, and brought the de∣vouring flood, v. 3.

Here it may be taken notice of, that whereas Marri∣ag•• (the joyning of one Man and one Woman only) had prevail'd hitherto by virtue of the Primitive Order and Institution in Gen. 2. 24. now at the latter end of the Adamick Dispensation Polygamy began to be intro∣duced. Lam••ch took unto him two Wives, Gen. 4. 19. and was the fir•••• person that transgress'd against that Conjugal Law. I find a very Reverend and Worthy

1 1.138 person ••avourable to him, and thinks his ••arnest desire of seeing that Blessed Seed which was promis'd to Eve, might induce him to take more Wives than one, hoping by multiplying of his posterity, some or other of th••m might prove so happy as to produce that Seed. This is a very Learned and Pious Account of the Original of Polygamy.

Here I might mention the Seven Precepts which the Iews much talk of, and say w••re given by God to the sons of Adam and N••ah before Moses's time. But Rabbi Maimon is more distinct, and ••aith six of these Precepts were given to Adam, and those that imme∣diately came of his loins (and so they fall in under this Patriarchal Dispensation) and afterwards these six with another added (i. ••. of Abstaining from blood) were delivered to Noah and his Sons. Of the Seventh I am not to speak in this place, it belonging to the Noac••ical Dispensation: but it is proper to give you some account of the other Six. Both the Talmuds and other Wri∣tings of the Hebrew Doctors recite them in this order: the first Precept was of Iudgments, of Politick and Civil Government, of Administration of Justice in publick Tribunals and Courts of Judicature; and that those who offended in the kinds after named ought to be severely pu∣nished. The Second was of Cursing the most Holy Name, or Blasphemy; that God's Name is not to be prophaned. The Third was of strang•• Worship or Idolatry; that they should not worship Id••ls. The Fourth is of uncovering of Nakedness, or unlawful Copulation, as Adultery, In∣cest, and the like: that these are absolutely unlawful. The Fifth is of sh••dding of Blood, or Homicide. The Sixth is of Thef•• and Rapine: Clandestine or open stea∣ling; taking away what is anothers: that none of these

are to be practised. Those that would see these Precepts largely commented upon may consult the Learned1 1.139 Sel∣d••n, who hath almost fill'd a whole Volume with them. That which I am to inquire into at present is, whether it be reasonable to give credit to the common Assertion of the Iews, who say that these Precepts were given by God himself to Adam and the Patriarchs before No∣ah.

First, I might take notice that the Iews agree not fully about the number of the Precepts given to Adam: for though Seven generally be said to be the number of them, yet there are2 1.140 those who dissent here, and so in some sort bring the giving of the Precepts, as well as th•• number of them, into question.

Secondly, We read no where in Genesis (nor in any of the inspired Books afterwards) that any of these Pre∣cepts were given by God to Adam, or his immediate children. We meet with nothing like them before No∣ah and Moses, and therefore we cannot with any cer∣tainty and confidence assert, that God deliver'd these before that time. I know it is said, and that by the Learnedest, that all Facts are not mention'd in the Bible; the Scripture refers to some as known and acknowledg'd, though no where expresly recorded: Thus these Pre∣cepts are refer'd to in Acts 15. 20. But I answer, though one thing done at this time, and another at a∣nother may be omitted in Scripture-History, as Adam's observing the Seventh day, and God's Injunction about Bloody Sacrifices, &c. yet it is folly to think that a Whole Body of Precepts should be given to Adam and his Sons, and that they should be openly divulg'd (as the Iews say there was a formal Promulgation of them) and yet not one of them be mention'd, nor so much

as hinted at in the History, which purposely treats of those things. Credat I••da••••, &c. And as to what some say, that these Precepts are referr'd to in the Decree of the Apostolical Council at Ierusalem, it is but a sur∣mise, and there is no real ground for it: only the mat∣ter or substance of two or three of those Precepts is there enjoyn'd (as we find in some other places) and that is all.

Thirdly, Not only the Writings of Moses and other books of Holy Writ were silent concerning the giving of these Precepts, but Ioseph, the Learned Iewish Anti∣quary, who comments upon the Mosaical Writings, and is wont to insert and add what he thought was left out, saith not one word concerning these.

Fourthly, These Precepts are all of them the Laws of Nature, or most easily reducible to them: They are Prohibitions against Injustice, Blasphemy, Idolatry, Un∣cleanness▪ Bloodshed, Rapine: All which are general Dictates of Nature and Reason, and written in man's Mind originally. Therefore it may be rememb••red that these Precepts obtain'd not only among the Hebrews, but among all Nations whatsoever. It is not likely then that God did orally deliver these to the Patriarchs before the Flood; for in that early time of the World it was not requisite. Tho afterwards some of thes•• Precepts were given to Noah, viz. after the corruption and gross de∣generacy of the People of the Old World, and when a New World of Men was to be set up: And tho these and the like Precepts were made up afterward in∣to Ten Commandments, and given to the Iews, i. e. when the World was more corrupted, and the Dictates of Reason and Morality were almost lost; and when it was as necessary to rouse mens Minds, and to keep Reli∣gion from decaying, and when God was erecting a New O••conomy, and chusing a peculiar People to him∣self; tho in these Circumstances the giving of such Pre∣cepts was necessary, yet now, in the Patriarchs days,

there was no need of delivering them, they having them fresh on their minds. There is no ground then for us to credit the Hebrew Doctors when they tell us, that those six Precepts were deliver'd solemnly to the Sons of A∣dam. It is only a Tradition of the Iews: and of what truth and reality their Traditions generally are, is known to those who are sober and unprejudiced Per∣sons; they are usually mere Fancies and Conceits, Dreams and Dotages, Lies and Forgeries.

Thus you see how it went with the World from Adam to the Flood, which is reckon'd to be about six∣teen hundred Years. You see how the State of Religi∣on stood, what Communications the World had from God. And here by the way I cannot but take notice of the groundless assertion of that1 1.141 Socinian Writer who declares,

That before the Flood there was no Gene∣ral Precept given to Men by God: they had only some Injunctions, which appertain'd to certain parti∣cular Persons and particular▪ Affairs. Nor had they any general Promise made to them,

he saith.2 1.142 Episco∣pius is more large, telling us,

That they lived almost 2000 Years without any Law, without any Promises, without any Precepts from God.

And he further adds,

That the Religion from Adam to Abraham was merely Natural, and had nothing but Right Reason for its Rule and Measure.

All which are mistaken Notions; for from what hath been deliver'd concerning this Oeconomy before the Flood, it is evident that there was a Divine Pr••cept (which was general) concerning Sacrifices; and there was a Promise (and that a general one) concerning the Blessed Seed; and there were other Laws and Prescriptions besides those that were founded on mere Reason: for it appears that

this Antediluvian Dispensation was mixt, partly guided by the Light and Law of Nature, partly by Revelation. Religion consisted both of Natural Principles, and Posi∣tive Commands. These were all along interwoven with one another. Thus the Old World was govern'd: In which Period there were these ten Patriarchs who were all long-liv'd but one; Adam was the first, who (when Abel was dead) begat Seth: whose Son was Enosh, who begat Cainan, and he Mahalalel; and this Iared, whose Son was Enoch, who was translated. Then Methusala••, the longest liver of them all, (Adam and he took up all the time between the Creation and the Flood); then Lamech (not he of that Name who was of Cain's Race); and Noah was the last of the ten Antediluvian Fathers.

CHAP. IV.

The Noachical Oeconomy. The first Positive Law under it was about eating of Flesh. It is proved that this prevail'd not till after the Flood. Objections against it answer'd. The Testimony of Pagans to confirm it. The Rea∣son of the Prohibition. The second Positive Law was concerning not eating Flesh with the Blood. The Reason of it. The third Positive Law was concerning not shedding of Man's Blood. With the Penalty of it. And the Sanction of Magistracy. Servitude not introduced under this Dispensation. The Longevity of the Patriarchs was common to all in those Times. The Months and Years were of the same length then that they are now. They were Solar, not Lunar Years. The Causes of the long Lives of those that lived before the Flood. The Abrahamick Oeconomy. With its several Steps and Advances. The Nature of the Covenant made with Abraham. Now the Faithful were separated and distin∣guish'd from the rest of the World. Why they are called Hebrews. The Nature and Design of Circumcision. Vnder this Dispen∣sation Altars were erected, Tithes paid, &c. Of Polygamy, and Concubines, and other Vsages.

THE Second Patriarchal Dispensation, or the Noa∣chical O••conomy began in Noah's days, and lasted till Abraham. Immediately after the Flood, the Cove∣nant which was made with our first Parents was renew∣ed to Noah: the Law of Grace which had been given to them, was now confirmed to this eminent Person, and to the ••est of Mankind in him: and the ••ow in the Cloud was made a Sign of the Covenant, Gen. 9. 9. It is to be believ'd, that a farther discovery of the M••s∣sias was made to Noah, tho the Sacred History saith no∣thing of it. But this is expresly recorded, that this re∣newing and confirming of the Dispensation of Grace, were accompanied with some positive Institutions and Laws, which were an addition to those that were before given to Adam. These are the things which make the difference between this and the former O••conomy.

The first Positive Law was concerning ••ating of Flesh. Ev••ry moving thing that liveth shall b•• Meat for you, Gen. 9. 3. The discrimination of Meats is taken away, and Flesh is granted to be eaten: and indeed there was a necessity of it at that time, because the Fruits of the Earth were destroy'd by the Flood. Before the Delug•• there was not a liberty given to eat Flesh, for they were limited by that Injunction in Gen. 1. 29. which ap∣points Herbs and Fruits to be their Meat. God said, B••h••ld, I have given you every H••rb bearing S••••d which is upon the Face of all the Earth, and every Tree in th•• which is the Fruit of a Tree yielding Seed, to you i•• shall b•• for Meat. Here is the Lex Cibaria, Man is con∣fined as to his Diet: Herbs and Fruits are appointed his Food, and no other. But now this Restraint is taken off by the same hand that laid it on; and God permit•• Noah and his Posterity to eat Flesh as well as Herbs.

But yet it is a Controversy among Writers, whether eating of Flesh was granted just after the Flood, and

was altogether prohibited before. The Hebrews gene∣rally say, that the People before the Deluge fed only up∣on what the Earth produced, and abstain'd from all living Creatures. Most of the Christian Fathers hold this, and say, it was by Divine Injunction: But1 1.143 Chry∣sostom and2 1.144 Theodoret seem to be of another Judgment. The Moderns are divided; some hold that Flesh was eaten before the Flood, and others not till after it. Luther, Peter Martyr, Fr. Iunius, and Musculus, hold the latter: But Calvin, Rivet, Par••us, and other Reformed Divines, hold the former, viz. that eating of Flesh as well as Herbs was free from the very Crea∣tion. Of this Opinion too are Beverovici•••• the Physi∣cian, Bochart, Voetius, Hottinger, and our Wille••. But I conceive that these worthy Men fail in this Point, and that the other Opinion is to be prefer'd before this, because there is a plain Text of Scripture to back it, (which the other Opinion is destitute of) Every mov∣ing thing that liveth shall be meat for you: even as th•• green Herb (which was the only Food allow'd you be∣fore, Gen. 1. 29.) have I given you all things, Gen. 9. 3. As much as to say, you have as free liberty now, since the Flood, to eat the Flesh of every living Crea∣ture, as you had before the Flood to feed on every sort of Herbs and Fruits, tho you were stinted as to Flesh. This is the clear sense and import of the words; and consequently proves, that eating Flesh before the Flood was unl••wful. I do not say, they never ate Flesh, for it's p••obable they did transgress sometimes, and made bold to taste of that sort of Food; but this is the thing I assert, that ••ating Flesh was forbidden them at that time, and that the Prohibition was not taken off till af∣ter the Flood; and that then first of all it was lawful

to kill Animals in order to the eating of their Flesh; all which appears from clear words of Scripture.

If it be objected that the Antediluvians kept Sheep; and therefore it is to be infer'd thence, that they ••ade use of their Flesh for Food: I answer, That they kept flocks of Sheep; 1. For their Wool and Skins to clothe them. 2. For Sacrifices, which consumed many of their Sheep and other Cattel: And perhaps, 3▪ for Milk, to sustain them (for, as I suggested before, they ventured to transgress sometimes, and to eat something else besides Herbs and Fruits, tho it was against a Com∣mand.) Thus you see the Shepherds Life, or keeping of Sheep, proveth not that they used the Flesh of Sheep for Food. And by what hath been said we know like∣wise how to answer that common Objection, that kil∣ling of Beasts was used by the Patriarchs; therefore eating Flesh was in use. It follows not, because they killed them either for their Skins or Fleece, or to offer them on the Altar. The elder1 1.145 〈◊〉〈◊〉 thinks that tho at all other times they abstain'd from Flesh, yet this was their extraordinary repast at Sacrificing. But I do not see any reason to confirm what he suggests; for tho afterwards it was usual to eat of the Sacrifices, yet it doth not follow thence that this was practis'd before the Flood.

Others argue also from the difference of clean and un∣clean Beasts before the Flood. It is evident, say they, that there was eating of B••asts at that time; else some could not be said to be clean, and others unclean. But I have proved before, that the distinction of clean and unclean Animals which was before the Flood, had respect only to Sacrifices, not to Eating. Notwithstanding then these Objections, I assert, that there was no Sarcophagy before the Flood, at least it was not common; and that

if any presumed to eat Flesh, it was unlawfully done of them.

This Notion the Pagan Poets and Philosophers had 〈◊〉〈◊〉.1 1.146 Virgil intimateth, that eating of Flesh was an impious thing, and not known in the first and pur∣est Ages of the World.2 1.147 Ovid describing those Times, lets us know that they sed on no Flesh, but lived alto∣gether on the Fruits of the Earth.

A•• vetus illa ••tas, cui fecimus aur••a n••men, Foetibus arboreis, & quas hum•••• educat herbi•• Fortunata fuit, nec polluit or a cruore. Tunc & aves tut•• movér•• p••r ••era pennas, Et lepus impavidus mediis erravit in arvis, Nec sua credulitas pisc••m suspender at h••mo. Cuncta, sine in••idiis, nulláam{que} timentia fra••dem, Plená{que} paci•• erant.

Which may be English'd thus;

The Antient Age, which we the Golden call, Was bless'd with H••rbs and Fruits, the only Fare That wholesom is. Those days were not defil'd With bloody Dainties. In those early Times The Fowls in safety flew in th' open Air, The Beasts securely ranged in the Plains, Fishes were not by their Credulity Unwarily betray'd. All Creatures liv'd In a profound security. For why? They neither used nor fear'd Treachery.

This the Pythagoreans testify, who were great Searchers into the Antient and Primitive Practices of the World.

P••rphyrius, who was one of that Sect, asserts that in the Golden Age no Flesh of Beasts was eaten: and he is to be pardoned in what he addeth afterwards in the same1 1.148 Book, that War and Famine first introduced this usage. He was not acquainted with Genesis, he knew not that God's Order to Noa•• after the Flood was, that every living Creature should be Meat for him.

If you enquire into the Reason why God, who had restrain'd Men from eating of Flesh before the Flood, permitted them to do it a••ter it; it is likely he did it because the Earth was corrupted by the Deluge, and by the saltness of the Seas; and so the Plants and Herbs, and all Fruits of the Earth were indamaged: The natu∣ral Virtue of Vegetables was much impaired, and there∣by they could not yield so wholesom and solid a Nou∣rishment as they once did, they were not so sutable to Man's Body as they were before. Hereupon God gave them a Licence to eat Flesh, he indulged this to them out of the Care and Love he bore to them.

The Second Positive Law which Noa•• receiv'd was concerning the not ••ating of Flesh with the Blood. Gen. 9. 4. Flesh with th•• Lif•• th••reof, which is the Blood there∣of, shall ye not ••at. Lud••vic•••• de Die•• is of opinion, that the eating of Creatures that died of themselves is here forbid; but I see no foundation for it. St. Chrys••∣••tom thinks, that eating of things strangled is spoken against here. But this doth not reach the full meaning of this Prohibition: for by this Law it was made un∣lawful to eat any raw Flesh whilst it was yet warm, and had the Blood and Life in it. Thus the Iewish Doctors understood it, and that very rightly, as the fa∣mous 2 1.149 Mr. Selden hath shew'd. This, they say, was

the Seventh Precept given by God to Noah after the Flood. We are sure it was one, for the Holy Ghost by Moses attesteth it here. Tho they had leave to eat Flesh, yet it was with this Exception, that they should not eat it with the Life or Soul, which is the Blood, that is, they were forbid to eat live Flesh with the Blood in it; they were not permitted to eat the Flesh before it was quite dead: or they were not to eat any Limb or Member torn off from an Animal alive. The Reason given, in another place, why they must not ••at Blood, is, because it is the Soul or Life of all Flesh; that is, it is the chief Instrument of Life; and therefore is pro∣perly and significantly used in making Atonement for Souls. Therefore it was designed wholly for Expiation, it was appointed and appropriated to that sacred Use on the Altar: And for this reason it ought not to be used in a common way. Again, God forbad eating of Blood (and that even before the Law) to teach abstaining from Man's Blood. They must eat no Beast's Blood, that they might not thereby learn to delight in Human Blood: as we see (saith1 1.150 an Expositor upon the place) Butchers, who kill Beasts, are generally cruel and bloody to Men; and for that reason the Law suffers them not to be on the Jury of Life and Death2 1.151 The Ath••nians, order'd one to be flead alive because he had serv'd a Ram so.3 1.152 The Areopagite Judges condemn'd a Boy to death, because he put out the eyes of Quails; and this is given as the reason, because it shew'd that the Boy was of a cruel disposition, and would prove very hurtful if he lived. So here it was thought that Blood-eating was a sign of and preparative to inhuman Actions, and accord∣ingly was not allow'd of. Therefore this Precept, of not eating the Flesh of Beasts with the Blood running

about it, was to restrain this Cruelty. The old Giants of the World before the Flood, generally liv'd on the Blood of Beasts, and so learn'd to be cruel and savage to Men; and thence, as Maimonides and Mr. Selden from him conjecture, this Law had its rise: God there∣fore commanded those of Noah's Posterity to re••rain wholly from Blood, that they might not proceed from cruelty to Beasts, to killing of Men. Besides, this may seem partly to be a natural Law, Blood being a gross Meat, and not fit for nourishment.

A Third Law given to Noah was that in Gen. 9. 5, 6. Surely the blood of your lives will I require: at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man, at the hand of every mans brother will I require th•• lif•• of man. Whoso ••••eddeth mans blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the Image of God made 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ma••. There is indeed a Treble Law comprised in these words: 1. They are forbid to shed mans blood. Noa•• and his sons are commanded not to be guilty of Homicid••. Ta∣king away a mans life was unlawful before, as in C ain; but here it is solemnly denounced to be such: and moreover, the Punishment of it is set down. If shed∣ding of mans blood were not here forbidden as unlaw∣ful, it would not be followed with a P••nalty, as you see it is. Which is the second Sanction here, the blood of your lives I will require at the hand of every beast, and at the hand of every man. Whether man or beast pro∣cure the death of a man, their blood shall be re∣quired for it. Death is here made the Penalty of Murder. Yea, the very Beasts that kill'd a man should themselves be kill'd. There was no Law before this for the punishing of Bloodshed. And thirdly, here is also signified the Aut••ority of th•• Ma∣gistrate, whose particular and peculiar work it is to require the life of man at the hand of every mans br••th••r. Whoso sheddeth mans blood, by man shall his blood be shed.

Here the manner of punishing bloodshed is set down, and appointed; it must be done by the Magistrate. A pub∣lick Minister of Justice is here ordered and appointed to punish the guilty: Here is the first Institution of that Political Order. Here is the first injunction for erecting Courts of Judicature.

Some of the1 1.153 Socinian party will allow this to be a Commination, but not a Precept given to Magistrates. But herein they separate what they ought to have united, for these words are both a threatning of Punishment, and also an Order or Warrant given to the Magistrate to execute that Punishment. It is to be done by Man (Adam) which word sometimes is appropriated to one of Eminency and Power, and therefore here not unfitly denotes the Magistrate, the Ruler, him that hath Au∣thority and Power above others. This is the person that is commission'd here not to suffer Bloodshed to go unpunish'd, but to return blood for blood: which is a practice grounded on the Law of Reason and Equity, which in such a case as this requires a just and equal Re∣tribution. But this and other places those of the Rac••∣vian way distort, to serve their own end, viz. to pa∣tronize their opinions concerning Magistrates, who according to them are not to use any Capital Punish∣ment, not to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 War, &c. But any unprejudic'd and considerate person cannot but see that the power of the Sword is here given to the Civil Magistrate. Upon this one Charter depends the Execution of Justice against all Crimes: upon this is founded the power of executing judgment upon Offenders, and of cutting off of Malefac∣tors. So that you see in this forecited place are contain'd two of those Precepts which were said to be given to A∣dam, the Titles whereof were of Iudgments, and of not Shedding of Blood, which both were Laws of Nature im∣printed

in mens breasts; but when after the flood the World began anew, God thought fit to revive the re∣membrance of these Laws, and made them Positiv••, and not before, that we know of.

Some think that under this Dispensation was intro∣duced Slavery; that men were all free before the Flood, and that not long after Servitud•• began, viz. in Canaan the Son of Cham; for which they alledg that Text, Gen. 9. 25. A servant of servant•• shall he b••. Here is the first servant mention'd; and because we read of none before, they conclude that Bondage, which is a great Curse, began in this Cursed Person, the Offspring of cursed C••am. But I cannot so easily assert that Servi∣tud•• had its first rise here; for though Canaan be the first servant mention'd, yet it doth not follow thence that Thraldom had its beginning in him: for silence is no Argument that there was none before. But the main thing which I have to say is this, that if Bondage com∣menc'd in Canaan, it is to be understood not of him∣self, but of his posterity. So that we may truly say, it did not begin in this Disp••nsati••n, but afterwards. And this is plain from the place it self, and the following verses, where 'tis said, Canaan shall be the servant of Sh••m; and he was so when his posterity the Canaanit••s were overcome and subdued by those of the race of Sh••m, viz. the Isra••lites. Then it was that this Curse on Canaan was fulfill'd, and not before. But as to com∣mon Servitude, we read of it long before that time; A••ra••am had m••n-servants and maid-s••rvants, who 〈◊〉〈◊〉 bo••ght with hi•• m••n••y, Gen. 12. 16. & 24. 35. so had Iacob, Gen. 30. 43. & 32. 5. And according to the M••∣saick Law they were permitted, in case of extreme po∣verty, to get money by the sale of their children, Exod. 21. 7. Lev. 39. but when the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 arrived, Liberty was to be proclaim'd, and Servants were set free.

There is nothing more, besides what hath been said, that is considerable in this Disp••nsati••n, unless it be the

Long••vity of those persons who lived both under this and the foregoing Oeconomy. This indeed is very remark∣able; and because it is peculiar to this period of time (for we find that soon after the Deluge the Age of men was abridged, and in a short time terminated as ours doth) I think it will not be foreign to our present de∣sign to give the Reader some account of it; that is, to inquire into the particular causes of the long Lives of the Patriarchs, to assign the reasons why they arrived to six, seven, eight, nine hundred, yea almost a thou∣sand years. So it is expresly recorded in Gen. 5. 3, &c. Adam lived 930 years, Seth 912, Enos 905, Cainan 910, Mahalaleel 895, Iared 962, Methusela•• 969, Lamech 777: and Noah's age is said to be 950 years, Gen. 9. 29. Some indeed labour to perswade us that this Vivacity was peculiar only to those Patriarchs that Moses rehearseth.1 1.154 Maimonides goes this way, and 2 1.155 Aberbanel agrees with him. None of late have en∣deavoured the proof of this more ingeniously than Mr. warren in his Geologia, where he tells us that the fifth Chapter of Genesis is the compleat List of those whose lives were thus lengthened in those first times of the world, because these were very Eminent and Vseful persons above others, men of Extraordinary Piety and Honesty, and therefore fitly design'd by God to live so long in the world to instruct and reform it, and carry on other designs of Providence for that time. But there is no manifest proof of this, yea the contrary is very evi∣dent; for all the days of Enoch (who is mention'd in the same chapter with those long livers before named) 〈◊〉〈◊〉 but three hundred sixty and five, v. 23. and yet he was the most Holy, Religious and Exemplary man of them all, which is meant by his walking with God, which is

applyed only to the most3 1.156 Pious and Vertuous persons. And on the other side, there is no mark of Eminency set on most of those whose long lives are recorded, as Cai∣nan, Mahalal••el, Iared, Mathuselah, &c. This is the Sum total of their lives, that they liv••d so many y••ars, and b••gat s••ns and daught••rs.

So that it is evident hence, that this length of years was not indulg'd to the Ant••diluvian Patriarchs for their singular Vertue and Excellency above others, but that it was common to all, i. ••. to the greatest part of the persons of those times, as they were people of that peculiar Dispensation, wherein God was pleas'd for se∣veral Reasons (which I shall produce afterwards) to pro∣long their days after this manner, And this which Mo∣s••s saith, is back'd and confirm'd by Pagan Testimony, as4 1.157 Ioseph the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 takes notice, who alledges the An∣tientest Authors that have writ concerning the Antiqui∣ties of the Egyptians, Chald••ans, Ph••nicians, Grecians, as witnesses to this part of the Mosaick History. They all ••ver that the measure of the time which the first people of the world lived was exceeding large, and even a∣mounted to a thousand years in some. There is no reason therefore to doubt of what M••ses delivers, or to think that those of this Period who are not mention'd by him, lived not so long as these whose names are enumerated in the 5. Chap. of G••n••sis: for the Mosaick Relation is known and confess'd by all to be brief and concise, and is wont to specifie only a few Instances when the generality is understood.

But others detract from the Mosaick Verity by a more severe way of cavilling, whilst they insinuate a mistake in the Y••ar•• which the Old Testament speaks of. It is not likely, say they, that there should be such a vast

disproportion between the Antediluvians and us, be∣tween their lives and ours. It may be they then reckon'd a shorter time for a year than we do now, and thence it is that they are thought to have lived so much longer than we. The years of Adam's life were Lunar, i. e. they were but Months, saith a1 1.158 Confident man, without as∣signing any reason for what he saith. The like was al∣ledged by2 1.159 Pliny long since, who mentioning some that were said to live seven or eight hundred years, tells us that this proceeded from ignorance of those times, and of the accompt or computation they went by; their Years being some of them but half, others but a quar∣ter of a year. And it is true, I grant, that the Arca∣dian Y••ar was but three months; yea, I shall not deny that the Egyptians Y••ar was no more than the Moons course, i. e. a month: so that we need not wonder at what Diodore of Sicily saith, that some Egyptian peo∣ple lived in a thousand years. And here by the way we may know how to solve those several passages in this Author, and Herodotus, and Pliny, and AElian concer∣ning the vast Antiquity which the Egyptians so much boasted of. We find in these Writers that the Egypti∣an Calculation ran extravagantly high, some making their Kingdom to be above ten thousand, some above twenty thousand years standing. Thus far then I am willing to grant, that the V••lgar Year among the Egyp∣tians of old was but a Month (though if we may credit 3 1.160 Vossi••s, they had other years that were longer; and we learn from a much antienter4 1.161 Author that they had a different computation, and that their Year was not al∣ways alike) but it is groundless and ridiculous to con∣clude hence, that the Years which all other Nations and

People reckon'd by were of this small dimension, and particularly that these Years are meant by Moses when he speaks of the Patriarchs. Yet there are some that have taken up this Conceit, and hold that these Years were but Menstruous, i. ••. they were of no longer du∣ration than the space of the Moon's passing through the twelve Signs, which is done in 28 or 29 days; and hereby they think they give a fair account of the reputed Long••vity of those persons.

But this Opinion is soon baffled by considering these following things; 1. There never was any such Com∣putation of Years in use among the H••br••ws, and those from whom they descended. The Learnedest and Skilfullest Antiquaries, and those who are most conver∣sant in that sort of Knowledg, will assure you of this. 2. Moses himself, who is the person that gives us the Ac∣count of the Lives of the Patriarchs, makes express men∣tion of Months as distinct from Y••ars, G••n. 7. 11. & 8. 13. And if they be really distinct, who can have the confi∣dence to say they are the same? 3. If you carefully per∣use the History of the Flood, that will certainly demon∣strate that the Y••ars in those times contain'd many M••nths in them, as in G••n. 8. 5, 13, 14. where you read not only of the first and sec••nd, but the t••nt•• m••nt•• of that Y••ar in which the Deluge was. And that it may appear that the Months were like ours, we read not only of the seventeenth day of the second Month, Gen. 7. 11. but of the twenty s••venth day of the same Month, G••n. 8. 14. Nay I will prove that the Antediluvians had 30 days in their Months, from those words in Gen. 7. 24. Th•• waters pr••vail'd on the Earth a hundred and fifty days. On the 17th day of the 2d Month Noah entred into the Ark, as we read in Gen. 7. 7, 11. then the Flood began, and it prevail'd till the 17th day of the 7th Month, as we find it in G••n. 8. 4. which space of time is exactly fiv•• m••nths, reckoning 30 days to a Month, for five times thirty is a hundred and fifty. This proves that both their Years and their Months were such

as ours, and that they had the same Computation which we have at this day. And this Calculation continu'd till St. Iohn's time, as we may satisfy our selves from Rev. 11. 2, 3. & 13. 5. where forty two Months are •• thousand two hundred and threescore days. 4. What I assert may be proved from the Absurdity of the contra∣ry Opinion; for if the antient Years were no longer than our Months, then it would follow that some of the Patriarchs begot Children when they were but six or seven Years of Age; which appears undeniably from the History of Moses, for Mahalaleel begat Iared, and Enoch begat Methuselah at the Age of sixty five Years: now if these Years were no other than Months, these Persons were but five years of Age, and a little more, when they begot Children; which is a thing that no Man of sober thoughts will entertain. 5. According to this Calculation the Patriarchs would have been very short-lived. If Years were only so many Revolutions of the Moon, it will follow that some of those Persons mention'd in Gen. 5. lived not so long as we generally do at this day. Nay, Methuselah himself, according to this way of computing, had not arrived to a hundred Years, which is a number that several reach even in this Age of the World. Thus you see what Absurdities ensue up∣on this Opinion.

Some therefore taking notice of these absured Conse∣quences, are forced to abandon this Conceit; but yet they betake themselves to another, which is this. Lu∣nary Years, say they, are so call'd either because they are but one Month, or because they fall short of the Solar Y••ar eleven days, as being reckon'd wholly by the Revolution of th•• Moon. These latter sort of Lu∣nary Years consist of 354 days, whereas the Solar Year contains 365 days in it. It is by those, and not by these that we are to reckon the years of the Patr••∣archs before spoken of, say the present Objectors: and accordingly their Years and ours now in use; are not the

same. I answer, it is true the Antient H••br••ws held the Y••ars in Scripture to be L••nar in this sense now mention'd, and there is good ground for it, because the I••ws began the Month with the New Moon; so that there could be not above nine and twenty days in one of their Months; for the Course of that Planet is finish'd within that time. And it cannot be denied that the old way of computing the Months among the Antient Arabians, Grecians, and R••mans, was from the Phas••s of the Moon, and consequently they reckon'd by these Lunar Years.1 1.162 Ios••ph Scalig••r was the first that denied the Hebr•••• Years to be of this sort, and undertook to prove that they were S••lar, i. ••. that they contain'd 365 Days, and consequently the Months consisted of 30 Days. And herein he was partly in the right; but when he contends that this was the use al∣ways among them, and that they had no other Com∣putation, he goes too far. But2 1.163 Petavius, who de∣signedly handles this Controversy, viz. whether they were Lunar or Solar Years which they reckon'd by of old, and are mention'd in the Old Testament, is more exact when he holds that both the Lunar and S••lar Y••ar were used by the Hebrews: the first was their Civil, the second their Sacred or Ecclesiastical Year. This recon∣ciles all.

But what have the Objectors gain'd by it? They have only brought the Year down from 365 Days to 354 (for this is a Lunar, and the other a Solar Year) and the one is but 11 days shorter than the other. That is all, which is no great matter: It doth not consider∣ably alter the Accompt, and therefore it was to little purpose to alledg it. Besides, this may be said after all, that the Years of the Patriarchs (whom we are

speaking of) and those of the Hebrews or Iews, who observ'd the New Moons, and reckon'd their Months by their Appearances, are not altogether the same; and therefore we can't argue from these latter to the former, especially when I have proved before from the Relation of the Deluge, that the Years and Months were then of the like extent with ours. Therefore we have rea∣son to believe that Moses means Solar Years in Gen. 5. and other places which speak of the Lives of the Men of those first times, and consequently that the Length and Duration of them were such as we have represented them to be: which was the first thing I undertook to prove.

But all this time I have been but clearing the way to what I principally intended, which is this, To search into the Causes of the Long Lives of those that lived before the Flood; for to say with Maimonides, that it was a Miracle that they lived so long, will not, I sup∣pose, be satisfactory to the Curious Reader: Wherefore I will enquire whenc•• it was that they usually lived seven or eight hundred Years, and sometimes almost a thou∣sand, tho we read of none that reach'd to that full num∣ber. This will appear very Reasonable and Account∣able if you consider,

1. That God gave them a longer space of time that they might multiply Mankind, and replenish the Earth, that (as Theodoret saith)1 1.164 their numbers might be in∣creas'd by their Annosity. Their Lives were lengthned out for the sake of Generation. There was a necessity of the prolonging of their Days, that the World might be peopled the sooner, that the Earth might be stock'd with Inhabitants in a short time. And this is a General Reason, you see; and therefore it is not likely that Longevity was the Privilege of a few only in those days,

as1 1.165 Maimonides and som others have thought, but that it was common to the whole race of Men, excepting a few, as Enoch, and two or three more perhaps.

2. As men lived long before the Flood for propagat∣ing of Mankind the more speedily, so their Lives were prolong'd, that they might the better propagate Arts and Sciences for the use of Life, that they might find out and discover things the more successfully, and de∣liver to Posterity the things which they invented. It is 2 1.166 Iosep••'s opinion that God indulg'd the Autediluvians a long Life, that they might study the Stars, and find out the Nature, Motion, and Influence of the Hea∣venly Bodies; for they could not attain to a Certainty and an Experience of these things without this. And he adds that the Great Year comes not about till the period of 600 Years, wherefore it was requisi••e they should live so long at least. But whether we admit of this particular Conceit of his or no, it is certain that Astronomy and other Arts could not be attain'd at first in a short time. Long Observation was necessary for this purpose, frequent and repeated Experiments being the great Basis of most Arts. These therefore could not be accomplish'd and perfected but by a large term of Years. The persons who lived to a great age were able to convey and entail Knowledg more effectually than w•• can now: only this is to be said, that w•• have some o∣ther ways and advantages of promoting Knowledg which they had not.

3. Their long Lives were serviceable to a higher and a nobler purpose, viz. for the retaining and preserving of Religion, and the true Worship of God, in a more intire manner: for 'tis to be remembred that there was no Scriptur•• then, and therefore Religion could not be

more advantageously spread and propagated than by a sa••e Tradition. And that this was especially aim'd at and designed by the Wisdom and Providence of God is e∣vident hence, that as soon as the matchless Treasure of Religion was deliver'd and secured to the World by com∣mitting the Law to writing, the Age of Man was pre∣sently stinted, and reduced to a set Period. This shews that one reason why the Dimensions of Mens Lives were far longer in those days than they were afterwards, was, that Religion might be the more surely kept up, they having no Written Laws at that time. Therefore these Living Laws (for such were the long-lived Patri∣archs) were requisite, whereby the Will of God was communicated with great ease and advantage to all men. This could be done even by Four Persons for the space of 2000 Years and more; for Adam's Auditor was Me∣thuselah, whom Noah succeeded, and taught Shem, and he those of his Age, even till the Year of the World 2160, or thereabouts: So compendious a way this was of instructing the World, and upholding Religion in it. But of this I shall speak afterwards.

4. Another ground of the Long Lives of the Patri∣archs before the Deluge was their Healthful Temper, wherein they much exceeded others that follow'd them. For tho we need not assert (as some have done) that the Earth was not situated before the Flood as it is now, that there were no Summers and Winters, but that there was a perpetual Equinox all over the World; yet this we may with good reason hold that there was a greater Equality of Heat and Cold in those days, and, as the consequent of that, there was a more constant and uniform Temperature of Mens Bodies. For we cannot but think that there was a great change caus'd by that Universal Deluge which cover'd the Earth; this could not but damp and chill the Air, and thereby ex∣ceedingly affect Mens Bodies, and contribute towards the shortning of their Lives. But before this general

Inundation they were healthful, and lived a long time. And this Account which I give lets us see that this was not a peculiar Donation to those Persons only whom Moses mentions, but that it was vouchsafed to all that lived in those early times.

5. I might add, that their Food was purer and whole∣somer than that of the following Ages. The Fruits of the Earth came up more kindly before the Deluge than afterwards; for we cannot but conceive that they were endamaged by the briny Waters of the Seas which were let loose on the Ground. By this means the pro∣ducts of the Earth were not so nutritive as befo••••, not so adjusted to the Constitutions and Tempers of Mens Bodies, and thence the Plenitude of Years was a∣bated.

6. Their Health and Long-living may be ascrib'd to their Temperance and Moderation; for their Diet be∣ing more simple and plain (consisting wholly of Herbs and Plants, and such like Products of the Ground) they were not tempted to that Excess which prevail'd afterwards, when several sorts of curious and delicat•• Dishes were allow'd them. Hereupon follow'd Wan∣tonness, Intemperance, Luxury and Riot; and by these the Hale Temper of Mens Bodies was impair'd, and Diseases bred, and their Days shortned. But as long as they continu'd sober and temperate, they wer•• bless'd with a sound Constitution, they were strong and vigorous, witness what you read in Gen. 5. 32. Noah was fiv•• hundred Y••ars ••ld, and b••gat Shem, Ham and Japhet.

I could adjoin in the next place, that it is very pro∣bable they had greater Skill in Physick than there was afterwards, tho they had seldom occasion to make use of it. The Professors of the Spagyrick Art do indeed tell us that the Longevity of the Patriarchs is to be at∣tributed to their Skill in Chymistry (for it is of that Antiquity they say) but it is to be question'd whether

there was any such thing at that time: we may rather content our selves with this belief, that they understood well the Nature of Herbs and Plants, and had more Time and Opportunity to study their Qualities and O∣perations than Men since have; and thence perhaps they made especial choice of such of them as were great Strengthners of Nature, and upheld the Life of Man.

Again, their quiet and contented way of living con∣tributed much to the lengthning of their Lives. They were generally free from Care and Distraction, they understood not the Intrigues and Perplexities which vain Men are now plagu'd with. In those Golden Times there was more Simplicity and Honesty, Men were satisfied with a little, and could live at a cheap rate. But afterwards the World was disorder'd, Mens Desires and Wishes grew immoderate and extravagant, and their Days were worn out with Troubles and Vexa∣tions. This is the best Account I can give of the Long Lives of the Patriarchs of the first Ages, and of the shorter Term of Years of those that succeeded them.

The Third Patriarchal Dispensation, or the Abra∣hamick Oeconomy, began with Abraham, and continued till the giving of the Law by Moses, which was 430 Years, Ex. 12. 41. Gal. 3. 17. The Person from whom this Period hath its Denomination was a Chald••an by Birth, and lived in Vr, the chief City of Chald••a. In this Idolatrous Country it is probable he was partly in∣fected with the Vic•• of the Place, and thence perhaps he is said to be Vngodly, R••m. 4. 5. But tho he was not wholly free from the impious Practice of Idolatry which then re••gn'd in the World, yet he retain'd his Integrity as to the main, and would not suffer himself to be born down with the wicked Examples of others. Mai∣monides and other Hebrew Writers tell us that he was cast into the Fire by the Chald••ans, because he would

not worship it. So the Trial of his Faith was by Fire, in the most strict and limited Sense of the Apostle's Words, 1 Pet. 1. 7. This we are certain of, that it seemed good to God to call him out of that place of so great Temptation, and to command him to repair to the Land of Canaan. When Noah's Family and Race were corrupted, he made choice of this Person above the rest, and rais'd him up to profess the true Doctrine and Worship. He vouchsa••ed to reveal his Will to him in an extraordinary and peculiar manner, and to make a Covenant with him, and to constitute him the Father of the Faithful: For Idolatry had in∣vaded the holy Race of S••••m, and thereby obliterated the Memory of the Covenant made with Adam, and afterwards with Noah; wherefore it was congruous to the Divine Wisdom to call forth Abraham who was of that Offspring, and to renew the Covenant and Pro∣mise with him, and further to assure him and his Seed of the Blessings that should accrue to them by the com∣ing of the Messias.

It will not be amiss to take notice of the several Steps leading to this. 1. God appear'd to Abraham in Chal∣d••a, hidding him leave that Place, and seek another Coun∣try, and he assured him of his Blessing. G••n. 12. 1, 2, 3. Th•• Lord had said unto Abram, Get there out of thy Country, and from thy Kindre••, and from thy Father's H••us••, unto a Land that I will shew thee. And I will make of thee a great Nation, and I will bless th••••, and make thy Name great, and t••ou shalt be a Blessing. And I will bless them that bl••ss th••••, and curse him that curs••th the••: and in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 shall all the Families of the Earth b•• blessed. 2. Abraham being come into Canaan, God appear'd to him first at Sich••m, and the Promise he then made him was this, Vnto they S••••d will I giv•• this Land, Gen. 12. 7. 3. God appear'd again to him at B••th••l, and renewed his former Promises, telling him that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 w••uld 〈◊〉〈◊〉 his Seed as th•• Dust of th•• Earth,

Gen. 13. 16. 4. He appear'd again to him, incourag∣ing and comforting him when he complain'd for want of an Heir. He promis'd him that he should have a Son, and that his Seed should be multiplied, and re∣peats his Promise also concerning his possessing the Land of Canaan. Only he adds, that his Seed must expect to be strangers in a foreign Land, and to be afflicted 400 Years before they came to settle in the promis'd Coun∣try, Gen. 15. 1 to 17. And at the same time God so∣lemnly made a Covenant with him, saying, Vnto thy Seed have I given this Land, ver. 18. 5. God ap∣pear'd to Abraham yet again, and renewed the former Covenant, saying unto him after this manner, I am th•• Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. And I will make my Covenant between me and thee, and I will multiply thee exceedingly: and thou shalt be a Fa∣ther of many Nations; and I will establish my Covenant between me and thee, and thy Seed after thee in their Generations, for an everlasting Covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy Seed after thee. Gen. 17. 1, 2, 4, 7. And now it was that his name Abraham was given to him, which signifies the Fath••r of a multitude, i. e. of many Nations; for Hamon, which is the word here con∣tracted, is a Multitude. 6. This Covenant is confirm'd with the Seal of Circumcision: Every Man-child a∣mong you shall be circumcised, Gen. 17. 10.

This is a particular and distinct Account of God's appearing to Abraham, and of his gracious communi∣cating himself to him. It is all in way of Covenant; and accordingly what hath been said, may be reduced to these two things: 1. What God promiseth to do on his part. 2. What Abraham and his Seed were to do on theirs. God promised in general that he would be a God unto him, and to his Seed; yea, he would be an Almighty or Alsufficient God to him; which compre∣hends all that can be said. But particularly, God pro∣mised him these things: 1. To give him (i. ••. his Po∣sterity)

the Land of Canaan in due time. 2. To mul∣tiply his Seed exceedingly, even as the Sta••s of Heaven. 3. To bless all Nations of the Earth in his Seed. And St. Peter in his Sermon (Acts 3. 25, 26.) interprets and explains this Blessing, speaking thus to the Iews, Y•• are the Children of the Prophets, and of the Cove∣nant which God made with our Fathers, saying unto A∣braham, In thy Seed shall all the Kingdoms of the Earth be blessed. Vnto you first, God having raised up his Son Iesus, sent him to bless you in turning away every one of you from his Iniquities. Christ Jesus the Messias is the Blessing that was promis'd by God to Abraham. This we learn also from St. Paul, Gal. 3. 8, 9. The Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the Heathen through Faith, preached bef••re the Gosp••l unto Abraham, saying, In the•• shall all Nations be blessed. So then they which be of Faith, are blessed with faithful Abra∣ham. And in the 14th Verse the Apostle declares, that th•• Blessing of Abraham cam•• on the Gentiles through Iesus Christ. And to make this more evident, he adds, ver. 16. To Abraham and his Seed wer•• th•• Promises mad••. He saith not, Vnto Seeds, as of ma∣ny, but a•• of one, And to thy Seed, which is Christ.

This was the Covenant on God's part: Now let us see what it was on Abraham's part. He and his Seed were oblig'd by this Covenant to behave them∣selves answerably to such bountiful Promises made to them, and such great things as were to be done for them. As the Lord had ingaged to be their God, so they by virtue of this Covenant undertook to be his 〈◊〉〈◊〉, to deport themselves as such in all the actions of their lives, and to do nothing unworthy of this singular Ho∣nour and Favour confer'd on them. All is summ'd up in those words, Walk b••for•• m••, and be thou perfect. To walk before God, is to please him. Enoch walked with God, Gen. 5. 22. which by the S••v••nty Int••rpre∣t••rs is rendred, Enoch pleased God. And accordingly

the Author to the Hebrews saith, that Enoch, before his translation, had this testimony, that he pleased God, Heb. 11. 5. So Noah walked with God, Gen. 6. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ LXX. I will walk before the Lord, Psal. 116. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, say the same In••erpreters. Therefore to walk, and to please God, are joined together by the same inspir'd Writer, in 1 Thess. 4. 1. the latter being the Explication of the former. This is, according to the same Apostle, to walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, Col. 1. 10. Thus Abraham and his Seed, by virtue of this Federal Transaction, were ingaged to walk before God, to serve him in that way which was most acceptable to him. This religious and spiritual walking denoteth (as the bodily one generally doth) continued Motion, Progress, Acquaintance, Converse, 1 1.167 Friendship. And to walk before God, implieth that the Perso••s who do so, consider that they are in God's Presence, and therefore do nothing but what is pleasing to him. The walking before God after this manner, de∣nominates a Man perfect; that is, it is the only Per∣section which he is capable of in this Life.

We see then what it was that made this a peculiar Dispensation. The Law of Grace, or Covenant made with Adam, and confirmed to Noah, was renewed to Abraham with special and peculiar Promises to him and his Seed, with singular Ingagements on their part. Here were new Discoveries and Manifestations concerning the Messias, viz. That he should be of the Seed of Abra∣ham, and consequently of the Nation of the Iews; and that tho he should spring out of the Herbe•• Stock, yet he should be an Universal Saviour, and all Nations should be capable of receiving benefit from him, and of being blessed by him: and that they should all be justified by Faith, as we have ground to infer from what is said of Abraham in Gen. 15. 6. He believed in the Lord, and

he counted it to him f••r Rightcousn••ss; and from the Apostle's Comment on it in Gal. 3. 8, 9.

And then, this is peculiar to this Period, that where∣as hitherto there had been no diff••rence of any Coun∣tries and Nations of Men; now there is a palpable dif∣ference made. For as God chose a Person out from the rest of the World, so he will now make of him a great Nation and People, which shall be differenced from the rest of Mankind. God seeing the World generally run∣ning into Idolatry, and all sorts of Wickedness, set up Abraham's Seed to stem the Torrent of Vice, to keep up Religion pure and entire, and to maintain the true Worship of God upon the Earth. The Church before was not separated, and gathered from the rest of the World, but was in common with it as to Place and Stock till Abraham's time. But now it is distinguish'd from other Nations, and it is confined to one Race of Peo∣ple, among whom there shall constantly be some religi∣ous Men, who are true and living Members of the Church, and of whom at length the Messias, the Lord of Righteousness, shall come according to the Flesh.

This Stock and Posterity of Abraham were called Hebrews; but what occasion'd this Name first of all is disputable. The1 1.168 Iewish Antiquary, and from him several2 1.169 others, have thought that the Hebrews were call'd so from Heber, the Son of Salah, the Father of Peleg. Others think it more reasonable to assert, that they had their Name from Abraham. I do not mean it in St. Augustin's sense, i. e. Hebrai, quasi Abra••••i (which was the Opinion of this Father at first, but af∣terward he retracted it, and adhered to the forementi∣on'd one): But I mean this, that this Name of the

Hebrews (as3 1.170 several have been induced to believe) is derived from Gneber, transiit, viz. from the passing of Abraham and others with him from Vr in Chaldea, through Mesopotamia into Canaan. Thence this Pa∣triarch is called▪ and that emphatically, Abram the Pas∣senger, Hagnibri, Gen. 14. 13. We translate it A∣bram the Hebrew: But the Septuagint, who well un∣derstood the true derivation of the word, render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Passenger, or the Traveller. The Reader may take his choice of these two Opinions, viz. whe∣ther the Hebrews were call'd so from Heber, or from G••ibri. But, to speak freely, tho I have no Author on my side, I do not see why they might not have their Name from both, i. e. from Heber, and afterwards from Abraham. For 'tis certain that the Iews were the Pro∣geny of that worthy Man Gneber or Heber, and there∣fore from him might originally be call'd, and he may be said to be the Father of the Hebrews. But it is as cer∣tain that Abraham was also the Father of them; and we cannot but acknowledg that his leaving his Coun∣try, and travelling into Canaan (where afterward his Posterity settled) were most famous and remarkable Occurrences, and might deservedly give him the name of Gnibri the Traveller; whence the denomination of the People descended from him is Hebrews. In this Name is recorded the Rise of that Nation, viz. from Mesopotamia, whence the Father of them came. And you may observe that it is particularly and signally men∣tion'd by God himself, Iosh. 24. 2. that he led him o∣ver Euphrates to go to Canaan: and therefore I am in∣clin'd to think that from this Epithet, (tho not whol∣ly) I say, from this Epithet given to Abraham (be∣cause he left his own Country, and passed over E••phra∣tes,

and so came travelling to Palestine) the Posterity of Abraham took their Name, and were call'd Hebrews. Afterwards they were call••d Israelites (from Iacob, whose Name was chang'd into that of Israel); and Iews (from Iudah, Iacob's Son). Some think this last Name did not prevail till the Kingdom, upon Solo∣mon's death, was divided into Iudah and Israel. But I see no footsteps of its prevailing then, for these People are not called Iews but once in the Old Testament be∣fore the Captivity, viz. in King Ahaz's Reign, 2 Kings 16. 6. Which how••ver confutes that of4 1.171 Iosephus, that they were first call'd Iews when they return'd from the Captivity in Babylon.

That they might be known to be a peculiar People, they were distinguish'd from all others by the bloody Badg of Circumcision: which was another thing that contributed towards the making this a new Dispensation. It is true, this Rite was instituted first with relation to Abraham's particular Person; for in my judgment the best Account is given by5 1.172 Iustin Martyr of the primary reason of this practice, viz. because Abraham believ'd in God, even when he was aged and un••••t for Genera∣tion, and when his Wife was decrepid and barren; he then believ'd (I say) that he should be a Father of a Child: for that reason God gave him a Sign of this nature, viz. the Circumcision of the Foreskin of that part of his Body, which then through Age was useless as to Procreation, but through Faith became otherwise. But there are other Reasons (secondary ones, and some of them mystical) which have reference, not only to Abraham, but the People descended from him. 1. Cir∣cumcision was intended and appointed to be a Character of Genealogical Sanctity, a special Mark of distinction

between the People of God and Infidels, between the true Worshippers and Idolaters, between the holy Seed and the Profane; in short, between the Seed of Abra••am and the rest of the World. Therefore all the forty Years the Israelites were in the Desert, they did not make use of this distinguishing Mark, because then they had no converse with other People, and so there was no need of an external Note of distinction to discriminate them from other Nations. 2. Circumcision (as hath been suggested already) was a Sign and Seal of the Co∣venant made with Abraham and his Seed, a confirma∣tion of the Promises made by God to them. Thence it is called by God himself his Covenant, Gen. 17. 9, 10. i. e. the Sign of it, as you read it explain'd in the next Verse, It shall be a Token of the Covenant between you and me. Thus this bloody Rite is call'd the Covenant of Circumcision, Acts 7. 8. and the Sign of Circumci∣sion, Rom. 4. 11. where the Apostle adds this high En∣comium of it, that it is the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith, i. e. of Justification and Pardon of Sin through the free Mercy of God, for the sake of the promi••ed Seed, in whom all the Faithful believe. For this Fe∣deral Mark in that part of his Body, was to remind and assure Abraham, that Christ should be born of his Seed. 3. It was reckon'd by the Hebrew Doctors as a kind of an Oblation and Sacrifice to God, there being a taking of something from the Body, and offering is to God: yea, it was a bloody Sacrifice. 4. Philo asserts, that the cutting off of that part was a1 1.173 sign of the abscission and casting away of superfluous Pleasures and carnal Delights.

Some have thought it was an artificial Restraint of Lust and Lewdness, and in the nature of the thing it self was some check to Lasciviousness. This is but a

Fancy, for it is known that the People of that Nation (and so of others since who use Circumcision) are none of the chastest Men in the World, to say no worse. That is another Rabbinical Notion, that Circumcision was made in that part of their Flesh, to represent they were to be a Holy Seed unto the Lord. But to speak with Sobriety and Reason, Circumcision was appointed for the ends at first mentioned; and lastly, to be a Symbol of the inward and spiritual Circumcision, the Circumcision of the Heart. Accordingly you read in the old Law of circumcising the Foreskin of the Heart, Deut. 10. 16. & 30. 6. and so in Ier. 4. 4. And in the New Testament the Apostle speaks of the Circumcision of the Heart, in the Spirit, Rom. 2. 29. and of putting ••ff the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by th•• Circumcision of Christ, Col. 2. 11. Hence observe why Sin is call'd a Body, because it is represented by the Body or Flesh in Circumcision. When the Flesh of the Foreskin is cut off, the taking away of Sin is signified; Sin is as it were cut off by it. And in the 13th Verse of that Chapter the Apostle speaks thus, You being dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickned. Sin and the Pr••putium are here put together as the same; and it is plainly signified, that Sin is denoted to be taken away when the Foreskin is cut off. Circumcisi∣on then was design'd as the Symbol of a Holy Nation, a religious and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 People; and thence you read in Scripture, not only of the Circumcision of the Heart, but of the Ears and Lips, to denote the Sanctity which was required in their Words and Convers••, and indeed in their whole Lives.

As to other Religious Rites and Offices, those that were used in the former Oeconomi••s prevailed now al∣so, as* 1.174 Sacrifices, Altars, Priesthood, &c. Tho we

read not of Temples or Tabernacles under the Patriarchal Dispensation; yet now their manner was to erect Altars in those places where God appear'd to them: and these were signalized for the future by dedicating them to the publick Service of God. Here they were wont to as∣semble together, to offer solemn Prayers and Praises to the most High; and they became as it were, Temples and Houses of God, Gen. 28. 17, 22. To the ordinary Sacrifices before used, you will find that Abraham and Iacob added another kind, viz. mere federal ones, which are describ'd in Gen. 15. 9, 18. & 31. 54.

Now also we first hear of Tithes: Abraham paid Tithes of all (i. e. all the Spoils) to Melchisedeck a Priest, Gen. 14. 20. Iacob made this Vow, I will surely give the Tenth of all to thee, i. e. of all that came of his Flock, or of the Fields, Gen. 28. 22. Thus the paying Tithes became a Pledg of Religion, and of subjection to God.

The Patriarchs now also used certain Ceremonial Lus∣trations and Purifications, as may be gathered from Gen. 35. 2, 3. Jacob said unto his Houshold, Be clean, and change your Garments: and let us arise and go up to Bethel. I might add the Ceremony used in Swear∣ing, viz. of putting the hand under the thigh of the Person they swore to, Gen. 24. 2. Also, you may ob∣serve there were at that time Holy Feasts of the remain∣ders of the Sacrifices, Exod. 5. 1. All these were Rites relating to Religion and Worship.

There were other remarkable things in this O••conomy, which are reducible to Religion and Manners. At this time began the Ius Leviri, or right of marrying the Brother's Widow. Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy Brother's Wife, and marry her, and raise up Seed to thy Brother, Gen. 38. 8. The surviving Brother was to marry the Relict of the Brother deceas'd, if he died without Issue. But it took not effect at this time. As to the Degrees of Consanguinity in reference to Mar∣riage,

they were not all of them observ'd, for Abraham married Sarah who was his Niece, for she was his eldest Brother Haran's Daughter, (tho he call'd her his Sister, and labour'd to make it out, saying, She is the Daugh∣ter of my Father, but not of my Mother, Gen. 20. 12. i. e. She was Grand-daugh••••r to his Father; and such were reckon'd by the Hebrews as half Sisters.) Iac••b married his Cousin-German Rachel, the Daughter of his Uncle Laban, Gen. 29. 28.

And as for P••lygamy, which was begun by Lamech many Years before, it was now practis'd by Abraham, Esau, Iacob, and others, tho it was against the Primi∣tive Law and Institution, Gen. 2. 24. The Concubines which they took were a secondary sort of Wives, as the Issue they had by them were a secondary kind of Children, for they had Gifts and Legacies, but no In∣heritance, Gen. 25. 6. But this must be said, and that with evident truth, that Abraham and Iacob's taking of other Wives or Concubines differ'd from the same custom and practice of that time in three things, which much alters the case. 1. They did not this of them∣selves, and so it was not their own act properly. It is expresly said, that Sarah brought her Maid Hagar to Abraham, and gave her to him to be his Wife, Gen. 16. 3. So Iacob, upon the motion and persuation of his Wife Rachel, took his Handmaid to Wife; it is in express terms said, she gave him her to Wife, Gen. 30. 4. So Lea•• did the same with her Maid, vers. 9. 2.1 1.175 Ioseph the learned Jew rightly noteth, that Abra∣ham and Sarah did what they did by the particular di∣rection and approbation of God; for their History in∣forms us, that they were Persons that were under the mo••e immediate guidance of Heaven. 3. It is not un∣likely that the ••oresaid Women moved their Husbands to

this, and that they consented to it on the account of the Promise which God had made concerning the Blessed Seed which should be of their Family; they were impa∣tient of having it fulfill'd some way or other. And par∣ticularly as to Abraham, God having only told him, that he should have a Child, but had not yet said by Sarah, this good Patriarch thought it might be this way fulfill'd, as an'1 1.176 excellent Person suggests.

We read that Whoredom and Adultery were now pu∣nish'd with death: thus Iudah sentenc'd Thamar to be burnt, Gen. 38. 24. Unless with2 1.177 some we shall say, that this was no capital Infliction, but a stigmatizing or branding with a hot Iron. Incest was in those times un∣lawful, for Re••ben is reprehended by his Father for de∣filing his Bed, Gen. 49. 4. and his Birth-right was taken from him, 1 Chron. 5. 1.

The Law of Primogeniture now prevail'd, as appears in the Instances of Esa•• and Reuben, tho by their own fault they divested themselves of that Privilege. These were the several kinds of Positive Laws relating either to Re∣ligion or to Civil Affairs, which were in use among the Patriarchs: (where by the by we may take notice how unskilful3 1.178 Mr. Hobbs was in the Sacred History, when he saith, Abraham had no other Law, except that of Circumcision, whereunto he was obliged but the Laws of Nature.)

This must be added and remembred by us in the last place, that the Precepts and Injunctions which were gi∣ven in the foregoing Dispensation, are suppos'd to be retain'd here. So much concerning the Primitive State of things before the Law of Moses: which was the Patriarchal Dispensation, or the first Dispensation of Grace.

CHAP. V.

The Mosaick or Jewish Dispensation seems to be Preposterous. The Law of Grace was veiled for a season. The Triple Law which this Oeconomy was famous for, briefly display'd. Four Reasons assigned why the World was so long without a Written Law. The Cere∣monial Law is part of this Dispensation. The several things which are comprehended in it. Oblations, viz. of Inanimate things. Sa∣crifices, which were of Living Creatures. An enumeration of those Sacrifices which were Set and Determined. Others were Occasional, viz. 1. Sin Offerings. 2. Trespass-Offe∣rings. 3. Peace-Offerings. Some Remarks about Sacrifices. The several Ends and De∣signs of this way of Worship. How the Mo∣saick Sacrifices are said to Expiate. It is largely proved that the guilt of all kinds of Sins whatsoever was Atoned by them. The Ob∣jections to the contrary are answered. The Principal End of the Judaick Sacrifices was to typifie and represent the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.

THe Second Dispensation of Grace is that which is known by the name of Iewish, Mosaick, or Legal. Concerning which we may observe this, be∣fore we go any further, that though this Oeconomy in some respects was not so perfect as the Abrahamick,

yet it was introduced after it. The Promise made to Abraham was of Justification by Faith in Christ Jesus, as the Apostle, who best understood it, expounds it in Gal. 3. where he calls it1 1.179 the Covenant confirmed before of God in Christ, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that Covenant whereby the Faithful were engaged to believe in Christ for Salvation. But then comes Moses's Law, and seems to establish Justification by the Works of it. So God was pleas'd to go back as it were. You will find the Apostle taking special notice of this in Gal. 3. 17, 19. The Covenant that was confirm'd before of God in Christ, the Law which was four hundred and thirty years after cannot disannul.— Wherefore then serveth the Law: It was added because of Transgressions, till the Seed should come, &c. He ac∣quaints them here with the Reason of this strange and preposterous Transaction, viz. Why Moses succeeded Abraham, why the Mosaick Law came after the Co∣venant made and confirm'd of God in Christ. There was a necessity of it, as things then were: The Law was added, i. e. it followed the Promise made to Abraham, because of transgressions: as much as to say, though Iustification was then and ever to be had by that Promise to the Father of the Faithful, yet the Mosaick O••c••n••my took place four hundred and thirty years afterwards, to restrain men from Sin, to shew them their Guilt, and to cause them to look for a Remedy. The Law was given so long after the Covenant of Grace renewed to Abra∣ham, because the infinitely Wise Disposer of all things knew that it would be serviceable in discovering Sin and Transgression, and so in preparing men for the Gospel. Thus it was found requisite to go back a little, for the Law of Faith could not have its free course and progress till the Law of Works was as it were brought upon the stage again. There seem'd to be a Representation of

this when Abrahams posterity, the holy Patriarch Ia∣cob's childr••n, went out of Canaan into Egypt, out of the Promis'd Land to the house of Bondage, and then return'd back to Canaan. This shadowed out this Re∣tr••grad•• Dispensation. The World was not fit for an higher Oecono••y, the Law was to do the Office of a S••hoolmaster, and to prepare and discipline them against Christ's Coming. So it was necessary till the S••••d should come to whom the Promise was made, i. e. till Christ himself should appear, and till the spiritual S••••d of Abra∣ham, the Church of Christ, made up of Iews and Gentil••s, should be in the World.

Yet this is not so to be understood as if the Law of Grace were Null'd all the time of the Mosaick Oecono∣my. No: it was only in some respects obscured and veil'd for a certain season. Or, it may be said, One was su∣perinduced upon the Other, and they did in a manner take place together, but in different Degrees, and among different Persons. Whilst the I••wish Oeconomy was in being, the Former One yet continued: For when a New Oeconomy is introduced, the preceding one is not always abolish'd, but remains partly in force. So here, the Law of Faith, or the Covenant of Grace which was made with Abraham, is still on foot under the Mosaick Administration. Therefore it is ob••ervabl•• that the Law published in the Des••rt of Sinai, and receiv'd ther•• by the people, is call'd a Covenant, ••xod. 19. 5. And with reference to this M••ses tells the Isra••lites that the Lord their God made a Covenant with them in Hor••••, Deut. 5. 2. which was no other than the Covenant of Grace made with Adam, and confirm'd to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Abraham (as hath been before shew'd) but now in a more illustrious manner ratified, and also enlarged and augmented, and transfer'd from a Family to a Nation▪ And this Covenant is actually and personally made good to the Iews by their being S••parated ••n a more signal manner than before from the rest of the World, and by

their being made a peculiar People, and taken into Grace and Favour. There was a Distinction made between God's Servants and others under the Abrahamick Period, but now it is more Visible and Remarkable; now the Iewish State properly commenceth: now these People are molded into a new Commonwealth, and God is their peculiar Governour. The Church of God was first united into One Politick Body or Society, and grew to be National in Moses's time. Now the Church in the Wilderness (as 'tis call'd by St. Stephen Acts 7. 38.) be∣came a Distinct Body of men known by the name of Is∣raelites.

This Oeconomy is famous for the Delivering of a Threefold Law, Moral, Ceremonial, Iudicial. Tho Moral, Ecclesiastical, Civil may be a better Division of those Laws: for some that are reckon'd among the Ce∣remonial and Typical Laws (as Tithes and First-fruits) are not such: and some of those call'd Iudicial, deserve not that name. But the Usual Partition shall serve; and by the Moral Law we understand those Precepts and Commands by the observance of which men are madere∣ally Good and Virtuous. The Ceremonial Law is the Iews Canon Law, and directs them in their external Behavi∣our in Religious Worship, and tells them what Rites and Usages they must observe. By the Iudicial Law we understand the Civil Law of the Iewish Nation, as Ius Civile is taken for the Particular Law of every sin∣gle State: This contains those Constitutions and Or∣ders which respect Publick Justice, and acquaints men what is Right and Equitable in their Dealings and Commerce▪ with one another. The first of these are such Precepts and Prohibitions as are good in them∣selves. The Second are indifferent in their own Nature, but are so far good as they are commanded by a Posi∣tive Law of God. The third sort are of a mixt Nature, being partly in their own nature good, and partly indif∣ferent.

This Triple Law is thought by the Iewish Writers to be comprised in those three words, Commandments, Sta∣tutes, Iudgments, Deut. 6. 1. Mitzoth Praecepta are said to be the Ten Commandments, the Moral Law: Chukkim Statuta are thought to be those Rites and Ce∣remonies that respect God's Worship, as Circumci∣sion, &c. Mishaphattim Iudicia are suppos'd to be all those Politick Constitutions that concern humane So∣ciety. But it is not certain that by these three words are meant those three distinct kinds of Laws, for these are mention'd in Gen. 26. 5. before there was this for∣mal Distinction of Laws. And in Deut. 11. 1. you will find these words transposed, which intimates that those are too nice who understand them in the former manner, for 'tis not likely that the Commandments, i. e. the Moral Law, would be set in the last place. Where∣fore I think it more probable that this diversity of words is used only to signifie the whole body of Precepts, of what nature soever, that was given to the Iews. But this is unquestionable, that the Dec••logue is the chief and most eminent part of these Laws, and the rest are b••t Appendages and Supplements to it. The Cerom••••ial Injunctions are annex'd to the Precepts of the first Table, and those that are Iudicial to them of the Second. The former are Particular Instances of the Duty which was required of the Iewish people toward•• God: the latt••r of their Duty towards their Neighbours.

The Hebrew Doctors divide all the Commandments of the Law into 248 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 365 Negative, and both 〈◊〉〈◊〉 into Twelve Houses (as they call them) and under each House more or less Commandments. The ••••mplete Sum is 613▪ which they say is according to the number of the ••etter•• in the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, in which all the Law is virtually and reductively comprised. These Ten Words (as they are called in the Hebrew) and those other Iudicial and Ceremonial Laws (which you may find set down from the 20th Chap. of Exodus to the end

of the Pentateuch) began to be deliver'd on Mount Si∣nai three months after the Israelites came out of Egypt, Exod. 19. 1. Moses was forty days (or six weeks) in the Mount: or rather (if you con••ult the ••••••tory) you will find that he was twice or thrice on the Mount so long a time, or a very considerable time; and then it was that he receiv'd these Divine Laws.

First, I will speak concerning the Moral Law, com∣prised in the Ten Commandments. I call the wh••l•• Decalogue the Moral Law, although the Observation of the Seventh Day, app••inted in the Fourth Command∣ment, be not strictly Moral▪ but because the Devoting some Certain Time to God's Service is Moral, and is contain'd in that Comm••ndment, therefore I reckon it part of the Moral Law. You meet with several particu∣lar Laws relating to Moral Duties, scatter'd up and down in the four last Books of Moses; but these Ten Words (as they are call'd) are a1 1.180 Summary Account of all those Laws and Rules which are more sp••cially and particular∣ly set down. This Law of Morality and Natural Rea∣son was in all the former Dispensations: but that which makes it Peculiar in is this, that this Law, which before was Written in mens Hearts, is now Ingraven on Stone. If I should say that there were no Lett••rs at all before these which God used on Mount Sinai: If I should a••∣sert that they had no Books or Writings before the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, but that the Characters of the Law were the first that ever were in the World, and consequently that now God taught men to write, I do not see how why man can disprove me. But this we are sure of, that from Adam to Moses (which is above 2000 years) there was no Written Word of God to direct the World. The Church was without Scriptures. God's Will which

was communicated to them by Revelation, was continu∣ed and kept up by Tradition. If it be demanded why God suffer'd the World to live so long without a writ∣ten Law, and what was the Reason of the writing of the Law at last; I answer,

1. The long Lives of the Patriarchs (as hath been in∣timated before) were one main Reason why there was no Written Law for so long a time. There was a Col∣lege and Society of many Seniors living many hundred years together with one another. Adam lived with Seth 800 years, with Enes 695, with Cainan 605, with Mahalaleel 535, with Iared 470, with Methuselah 243, with Lamech 56. Or we may instance in Pious Shem, who was both before and after the Flood: he lived with Methuselah 97 years, with Lam••ch 92, with No∣ah 447, with Arphaxad, Sala and Heber about 430, with Peleg and Regu about 239, with Serug 230, with Nabor 149, with Terah 205, with Abraham 150, with Isaac 50. These therefore could con••er Notes with great ease, they could inform themselves truly concer∣ning the Faith and Religion and Practice of the First Man, they could instruct one another concerning thei•• Duty, and the indispensible necessity of it. Or take it more briefly thu••, Adam lived to converse with Methu∣selah, Methuselah lived to see and know Shem, Shem lived till Iacob was born: so that these three Patriarchs, who could give an Account of all that time wherein they lived (which was above 2000 years) were able to keep their Families, and all other People that were near them, in the knowledg of the true Religion, and where they err'd and offended, to correct them. Thus Religion and Divine Worship might be faithfully transmitted from the beginning of the World to above twenty Centuries by three persons only. The Church was then sufficiently taught by Tradition from Father to Son, viv•• v••c••, because of the Longevity of the Patriarchs, some of whom lived 700 years, others 800, or 900. For this reason

the Church was without Scriptur•• almost five and twen∣ty hundred years. But afterwards when the years of mans Life were shortned, God used another Method, he taught men by a Written Law.

2. The Degeneracy of the World was another Rea∣son why the Law was committed to Writing. The World at first had many Pious as well as Antient Patri∣archs, who were (as Philo notes)2 1.181 Living and Ra∣tional Laws, and so stood in need of no Written ones: for these are but3 1.182 Commentaries on those Old Fathers Lives. But the Vices of men grew proportionable to their Numbers: and when Mankind was spread wide up and down the Earth, Immorality and Sin were dis∣persed likewise, and the World became notoriously wick∣ed. The Deluge did not wash away the Contagion, but in a considerable time after men were as bad as ever, and the very Dictates of their Reasonable nature were discar∣ded by them. When they had thus obliterated the Law written on their minds, God thence ingraved it on Ta∣bles of Stone. If men had not been wonderfully cor∣rupted, there had been no need of this. So faith the Apostle, speaking of this Law, It was not made for the Righteous, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, I Tim. 1. 9. The same he had intimated before in Gal. 3. 19. The Law was ad∣ded because of transgression; it was given to be a Check to their notorious Sins, and that they might not offend uncontroul'd. And this may be the meaning of the Apostle's words in Rom. 5. 20. The Law entred, that the Offence might abound, i. e. that men might see how their Sins abounded. God gave his Law in Writing, to shew them their Guilt, to convince them of their gross Miscarriages, and to reduce them to the way of

Virtue and Obedience, that when God himself had writ down their Duty with his own hand, they might be inexcusable.

3. The Law was committed to Writing that it might not be forgot.3 1.183 One, reputed to be a Judicious Wri∣ter, is of opinion that the Patriarchs were happier without the Written Law than with it; it was a mark of God's love and favour that they had no books and writings, I suppose he means because they did not need them. But afterwards there was occasion for them; for the Impres∣sions of the Law of Nature were almost defaced and ob∣literated; the Instructions and Traditions of their Fa∣thers were neglected; and the knowledg of God and their Duty could not be kept pure by Oral Tradition, when not only their Lives were short, but corrupted and miserably depraved. Therefore an exact Written Law was wanting, to set before their eyes, and to re∣mind them of what they were to do, to put them con∣stantly in remembrance of what God required of them. Hereupon the Moral Precepts were written by God him∣self, and delivered to M••s••s, that the might communi∣cate them to the People, and they to the rest of the World. This was out of kindness to them, it was de∣sign'd to be a Remedy against their forgetfulness and negligence. Lastly, (which comprehends all) the Law was written that it might not be corrupted. Tra∣dition was unsafe when the numbers of men were increa∣sed, and the World was dispersed, and arrived to a great height of Impiety. Therefore God thought it neces∣sary to preserve and perpetuate the Law by Ingraving it on Tables of Stone, which are Solid and Du••able, and by lodging it in the A••k as in a safe Treasury, by ordering it to be Transcribed, and to be Read to all the People, and that they themselves should read it continually. This

was the best way to prevent all Error and Imposture, all Fraud and Corruption about the Law. This made it a thing impossible to deprave and pervert the Letter and plain Sense of it. For these Reasons that Word, which for near 25 Centuries of Years was delivered and pro∣mulged by Tradition, was committed to Writing in Moses's time, and not before. For these Reasons the Common Law of Nature was turn'd into this Statut•• Law of the Commandments.

I will not here speak particularly of the Ten Com∣mandments, because in the Body of the Work which I intend, I am obliged to insist upon every one of them distinctly and largely: and also because it is the Wri∣ting of the Moral Law (of which I have given you an Account) not the Law it self, that is part of this Mosaick Dispensation, as it is different from those which went be∣fore. The Ten Command••ents were given now, not that they were of no force before this time: but now they were Written on Tables, and more Solemnly Pro∣mulg'd. This was it which we were to take notice of as New, and proper to this Iudaical Period. If any man thinketh that these Ten Commandments, because they were deliver'•• to the Iews, were drawn up for that Body of People only, and are not of universal Concern∣ment, I could silence that surmise, by shewing that these Commandments were in force before the Law given by Moses to the Iews, and that every one of them was a Law before the Mosaick Oeconomy, and that those who lived in all the former Dispensations observed these Com∣mandments. Nay, they are all of them, excepting only the Determination of the Sabbath day, the very Law of Nature, written on the heart of man at his Cre∣ation. They are Dictates of Natural Reason, and there∣fore they ought to be done though they were not com∣manded. For this Reason likewise it is not proper to insist upon them in this place: for they are no special part of this Oeconomy. But the Cerem••nial and Iu∣dicial

Laws are the grand things which make this a dis∣tinct and peculiar Administration. Of those therefore I will hasten to speak.

The Ceremonial or Ecclesiastical Law is no other than the Precepts given by God to the Iews concerning Ex∣ternal Rites belonging to Religion and the Worship of God. Of these Ceremonial Usages several were in use before Moses's time, viz. Priests, Altars, Sacrifices, Oblations, Tithes, Distinction of Clean and Unclean Animals, Not Eating Blood, Circumcision. But now all the former Rites and Ceremonies are digested into One Body, and are become more Fixed and Certain. The Ceremonial Service of the I••ws was now precisely determin'd, and there was no varying from it. Agai••, whereas in some Ag••s one Ceremony was used, in ano∣ther another, Now they are all together, and are obser∣ved at the same Time, and by the same Persons. Be∣sides, the Worship of the Patriarchs, tho not wholly void of Ceremonies, was Simple and Plain in respect of what was now. Under this Legal Dispensation the number of Ceremonies was vastly increas'd, and the Worship was all Gay and Pompous by reason of them. Moreover, (as you will have occasion to observe) several of the Ceremonies used by the Iews differ from the same in use among the Patriarchs, as to some considerable Cir∣c••••stances and Qualifications.

The Cer••monial Law of the Iews comprehended in it, 1. The External Worship it 〈◊〉〈◊〉, which consisted chief∣ly in Ob••••tions and Sa••••if••ces, in Offer••ng and Consu∣ming 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to the Honour of God. 2. The things belonging to the Persons who Officiated, as High-Priests, Priests, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 3. The Place of God's Worship, viz. the Tabernacle and Temple, with all the Utensils and Instruments employ'd about them. 4. The Sacra∣ments, Circumcision and the Paschal Lamb. 5. The Times and Set Seasons of Worship. 6. Some things that respect the Co••••ersation of the Worshippers, as the

difference of Meats and Drinks, Uncleanness in touching the Dead, Garments, &c. 7. The Religion of Vows. Of these in their order.

I begin with Oblations and Sacrifices, which were the principal Matter of the Ceremonious Worship com∣manded by the Mosaick Law. These two are distinct things, as we see in Psal. 40. 6. Sacrifice and Offering thou wouldest not. And in Dan. 9. 27. He shall cause the Sacrifice and Oblation to cease. Zebach and Min∣chah, which are the words here used for Sacrifice and Oblation, are answer'd by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Heb. 10. 5. And the same Author again makes this division of the Legal Offerings, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Gifts and Sacri∣fices, Heb. 9. 9. The Iewish Writers keep this di∣stinction inviolably in their1 1.184 Treatises relating to this matter.

First, The Mosaick Law enjoined the Minchah, the Gift, or Oblation, i. e. Meal, Flower, Bread, Cakes, Wafers, Salt, Oil, Frankincense, handfuls of green Ears of Corn, and all other Fruits of the Earth. These were brought and burnt before God, or partly eaten and partly burnt. But tho Minchah was the ge∣neral Name for the Offering and Burning of all inani∣mate things which were presented to God; yet the Bread, Meal, or Flower that was offer'd, was more signally called Minchah, For which reason I conceive (if I may be permitted to be critical in this matter) Minchah, which we constantly translate in the ••ent••∣teuch, a meat Offering, should rather be rendred a meal or flower Offering, And the Sacrifices of Fl••s•• might be called the meat Offerings rather, according to our usual way of speaking▪ But the Mincah was a C••••e made of fine Meal, Oil, and Frankincense, and baked. 2 1.185

It was offer'd every Morning and Evening with the or∣dinary Sacrifices; and at other times it was generally join'd with all bloody Sacrifices. The like kind of Ob∣lation among the Gentiles was called Libum. The Ob∣lations of the things before mentioned, were sometimes, stiled Terumoth, or Heave-offerings, from the manner of offering them, viz. by holding them up, and by shaking them up and down, to signisy (say the Jews) that God was Lord of Heaven and Earth: For Terumah was an Offering to God of something they had received, to acknowledg God's Dominion over the whole Earth, and to set forth his Praise and Honour. It was an ho∣nouring of God with their Substance, and a thankful re∣membrance of the Blessings they enjoyed in so good a Land. The Oblations of these things were sometimes also called Tenuphoth, or Wave-Offerings, because they used this kind of gesture in offering them, they waved them to and fro▪ from the right to the left, East and West, North and South: and this also was to declare, that God was Lord of the whole World. These Offer∣ings were instituted by God as an Acknowledgment, that the Fruits of the Earth which they enjoy'd were from him. The liquid things which were offered to God, were Water, Wine, Oil, and Blood: The way of offering these Liquors was partly by effusion; they poured out the Water, Oil, and Blood, and some por∣tion of the Wine on the ground, and spilt them about the Altar, and upon the Sacrifices. Thence that of the Apostle may be understood, If I be poured forth (for so it is in the Greek) upon the Sacrifice and Service of your Faith, Phil. 2. 17. And part of the Wine they drank, whence you read of Drink-Offerings or Libati∣ons: Of which the Psalmist speaks, when he saith, he will take the Cup of Salvation, Psal. 116. 13. which is meant of the Drink-Offering of Praise, which was in use when they sacrificed and feasted in the Temple. These were the inanimate things of which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Obla∣tions

consisted, which were generally known by the name of Mincahor, Meat-Offering, as we translate it, tho it is true likewise that Mincah (which is a word of a large signification) was the usual term for the daily Sa∣crifice.

Secondly, Their Worship was accompanied with Sa∣crifices, which were of living Creatures. Zebach was the bloody Sacrifice, such a one as was always attended with the shedding of the Blood of Beasts. It is usu∣ally called by the Greeks1 1.186 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 i. e. a Slaughter Of∣fering, and sometimes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and by the Latins Victi∣ma, and Hostia. These Sacrifices, properly so call'd, were Animals kill'd, and then burnt. These Animals used in Scripture were either Terrestrial, or AErial, Beasts or Birds. Of Beasts there were these three kinds only, viz. the Bull, or Cow, or Ox, which made but one kind; the Goat or Kid; the sheep or Lamb; (and this may be observ'd, that a Lamb is applied to the young ones both of Goats and Sheep, Exod. 12. 5.) The Iewish Masters take notice, that these were the on∣ly Cattel that were used in Sacrifice, because they are mild and tame Creatures. God made choice, say they, of those Animals that are driven by others, not those that drive and worry others, as the Lion, the Wolf, the Leopard. Whence they make a good moral Obser∣vation, that those are the Elect of God, and are fit to be offer'd unto him, who are of a meek and patient Spirit. Tho I believe the true reason why Bulls, Sheep and Goats were the standing Sacrifices, was this, that they were obvious and easy to be had. Of Birds or Fowls, they sacrificed Pigeons, and Turtle Doves, and some add the Sparrow. But this is certain, that if we reckon not this last among Sacrifices, we must put it in∣to the number of Oblations.

The Iewish Sacrifices were either Set and Determin'd, or Vnlimited and Occasional. The former were these that follow, 1. Such as were Anniversary, as that once a year in the Holy of Holies, and those that were offer'd yearly at the Passover and other Solemn Feasts. And the Paschal Lamb it self was a Sacrifice, and often so call'd, Exod. 12. 27. & 23. 18. & 34. 25. Deut. 16. 4, 5. Why then is it not numbred among the Sacrifices by those that write on this Subject? 2. Such as were Monthly, viz. the Sacrifices offer'd constantly at the New Moons. 3. Some were Weekly, offer'd every Sabbath: for we read of Sacrifices proper for this time; God commanded the Iews to offer more on this day than on any other, Num. 28. 9, 10. Two Lambs were sacrificed both in the morning and in the evening, and a double portion of Flower and Wine. 4. There was the Daily Sacri∣fice, Hatamid, Iuge Sacrificium, Dan. 8. 11. Two of these were offer'd every day, viz. a Lamb in the Morning and a Lamb in the Evening, Ex. 29. 38. but this Lamb is taken in a Large sense, for it might be either of the Sheep or of the Goats. The Morning Sacrifice was offer'd at the Third hour, i. e. Nine a clock in the Morning: and the Evening Sacrifice at the Ninth hour, i. e. Three a clock in the Afternoon. This latter is said to be offer'd 1 1.187 between the two Evenings, viz. (as Iosephus expounds it) between the Afternoon-Evening (i. e. when the Sun began to decline) and the Sun-Set Evening, which is reckon'd from the Suns Setting to Midnight. It was of∣fer'd between the Declining and the Setting Sun. These Daily Sacrifices were of that kind of Sacrifices which were call'd Holocausts, or Burnt Offerings, and therefore are call'd Continual Burnt-Offerings, Num. 28. 10, 15, 24. & 29. 11. Ezr. 3. 5. Ne••. 10. 33. Now the na∣ture of this sort of Sacrifice was, that it was wholly con∣sumed,

and all of it turn'd into Smoke and Flame, to the honour of God: thence it was called Gnolah, i. e. Ascension, because the whole Animal (except the skin and entrails) ascended up in Flames of God. Yet some Learned men, because of those words in Psal. 51. 19 dis∣tinguish between a Burnt-Offering and a Whole Burnt-Offering. The G••olah or Burnt-Offering (say they) was that of which one part only was burnt, and the other part was given to him that brought the Sacrifice: but of the Chalil, the Whole Burnt-Offering, every part was con∣sumed by fire, even the very Skin; not the least portion being spared either for the Priest, or him that presented it. Concerning the Burnt-Offering we may observe, that it was never offer'd without the Meat-Offering of Flower and Oyl mingled, and never without a Drink-Offering of Wine, Num. 15. 3, 4, 5. So much of the more. Solemn and Stated Sacrifices among the Iews.

The Latter sort of Iewish Sacrifices were Occasional, the precise Time of offering, which was not determin'd by the Law. These were either after the Commission of some Sins against the Iewish Law, or after the Receipt of some particular Mercies. The first, I say, were offered when some Sin against the Law was committed: there∣fore they were called Sacrifices for Sin, or Sin-Offerings. But here we are taught to distinguish, for these Sacrifices were either for2 1.188 Sin, as it denoteth some lesser Fault, or for3 1.189 Trespass, which signifieth a greater one. The former of these Sacrifices was called Chattah a Sin-Of∣fering, because it was appointed to be offer'd for the Ex∣piating of a Sin of Infirmity and Inadvertency, or of Ig∣norance and Error. The latter of them is named Asham, a Trespass-Offering, because it was commanded to be of∣fer'd for the Expiating of a Trespass knowingly commit∣ted,

a Voluntary, Deliberate Sin, and therefore it requi∣red a more costly Sacrifice than the other. This is the usual distinction between Chattah and Asham, and it is approved of by that Great and Piercing Critick Monsieur B••chart, Hieroz. P. 1. l. 2. C. 33. But Maimonides a Learned Iew held the quite contrary, and was of opinion that Chattah was a Sacrifice that was offer'd for the Ex∣piating of faults of an high nature, and Asham for those of an inferiour sort; More Nev. P. 3. C. 46. There are other Reasons given of the Names of these two Pi∣acular Sacrifices: particularly Mr. Mede (Discourse 49.) thinks that the Trespass-Offering was for sins against the First Table, and the Sin-Offering was for sins against the Second. Some of the Hebrew Doctors distinguish other∣wise; and indeed there is no great Certainty here a∣mongst the most Learned Writers that I have met with. I might observe to you further concerning these Sacrifi∣ces, that they were partly Burnt, and partly went to the use of the Priests, who in the Atrium of the Tabernacle or Temple sed upon them, i. e. when the Sacrifice was for a particular Person. But if it was for the People or the Priest himself, it was All of it Burnt to Ashes.

The Second sort of Occasional Sacrifices was upon the actual Receiving some particular Mercy from God, or upon good hopes and expectations of the arrival of some singular Benefit and Favour. These were generally call'd Shelamim, Peace-Offerings, or Sacrifices of Peace: and they were either Eucharistical, i. e. Voluntary Sa∣crifices to return Thanks to God for the benefits they had receiv'd; or they were Euctical, i. e. attended with Wish∣es and Prayers for New Mercies and Benefits. Both these kinds of Sacrifices were Free-will Offerings, and of Choice. Whereas the Holocaust was all of it consumed in the fire, and nothing was left; and whereas part of the Sin-Offering was burnt, and another part was given to the Priest, here it is otherwise; for these Sacrifices were distributed into three parts, one part, (i. e. the Fat

and the Kidneys and Blood) was burnt to God on the Altar for a sweet favour: another part was the Priests, to him belonged the right shoulder, the breast, the two cheeks or jaws, the tongue, and the maw: the third part, viz. the rest of the flesh, and the skin were for the use of those that gave the Peace-Offering, and such as they pleas'd to call to partake with them: so that always after the Peace-Offering follow'd a Feast made of the re∣mainders of the Sacrifice. Yet there was some difference as to the Peace-Offerings of the Congregation (which were for the whole People) and the Peace-Offerings of parti∣cular Persons. In the former the Blood of them was sprinkled, and only the Inwards burnt, and the Flesh not eaten by the persons who offer'd them, but only by the Priests in the Court: but in the latter (which were Private Sacrifices) it was not so. It is to be noted that those parts of the flesh which were not appointed to be consumed on the Altar, but to be eaten by the Priests and the persons that brought the Sacrifices, were not roasted, but sodden, Num. 6. 19. 1 Sam. 2. 13. 2. Chron. 35. 13. Observe also that whereas Males only might eat of the Sin-Offering and Trespass-Offering, Women were admitted to the Peace-Offerings. Note this too, that these Sacrifices were of Beasts of both Sexes, but the Burnt-Offerings were of the Males only.

I might add this, as having relation to the Discourse of Sacrifices, that the Fire which kindled them at first came down from Heaven, Lev. 9. 24. This was per∣petually kept, and not suffer'd to go out: and any Fire but this was accounted3 1.190 Strange Fire. It is thought that That Celestial Fire was preserv'd in some Vessel whilst the Israelites were in the Wilderness, and so was continued till Solomon's Temple was finished: and then Fire came down again from Heaven, and consumed the

Sacrifices, 2 Chron. 7. 1. This was preserv'd till the Babylonian Captivity, and afterwards renewed, 2 Macc. 1. 22.

Here the Difference between the Patriarchal Sacrifi∣ces and the Mosaick ones might be taken notice of. The Patriarchs had no other Expiatory Sacrifices but Holo∣causts or Burnt-Offerings, as is clear from several places. Besides, there were Anniversary, Monthly, and Weekly Sacrifices among the Iews, but we know not that there was any such thing before the Law. And some other Dif∣ferences the Reader may gather from the particulars aforesaid.

But the End and Design of these Sacrifices are chiefly to be inquired into: (where we shall also see a further Difference in some things between the Mosaical and Pa∣triarchal Sacrifices) Let us see to What Purpose all those Bloody Offerings were appointed, let us acquaint our selves with the Design of Heaven in it. First, They were (as the Fruits of the Earth) intended as Acknow∣ledgments that God was their Benefactor. He gave these Animals as well as those Fruits, and therefore it was fit to offer these as well as the others. 2. If we speak concerning the Continual Morning and Evening Sacrifi∣ces, it is certain they were Symbolical, they were a To∣ken of God's Presence among them. They were insti∣tuted as a Testimony of This, as you read in Exod. 29. 38, to the end. They were a Sign that the Lord would be continually with them, and be their God. 3. The Mosaical Sacrifices were to testifie what the Iews deserved for their Sins, viz. Death. By these Bloody Oblations it was signified that the Life of Beasts should expiate for the Life of Men who had sinned, and were become worse than Beasts. Sheep and Oxen were substituted in the room of Offenders: these sinned, and those were slain. Though this could not be evidently discover'd by Natural Light (as hath been said) yet now, upon God's declaring in the Law, the nature of these Sacrifices, it ap∣pears

that this was one design of them. Those Legal Sacrifices were a kind of Confession of their Guilt. By killing their Beasts they did as 'twere acknowledg that themselves deserved to be used so. 4. The Mosaical Sa∣crifices were Federal Rites, and design'd to signify the Correspondence and Agreement between God and Man. To which purpose you may observe that as part of the Shelamim, the Peace-Offerings, was burnt on the Altar, so the remainder and greater part were eaten by the Peo∣ple that brought it, to shew that it was truly a Sacrifice of Peace, a Ceremony of Communion and Friendship with God, a Token of Fellowship and Amity between God and Man. As for the Holocaust, that indeed was all of it burnt; but there was a Meat-Offering and Drink-Offering annexed to it, to denote Familiarity and Friend∣ship, to shew that they were Guests in God's House, or rather that they were of his Family, and were fed at his Table, and eat of his Meat (as the Sacrifices are call'd in Mal. 3. 10.) and Houshold Provision.

Again, the great Design of the Mosaick Sacrifices was to Expiate and Atone. Not only Burnt-Offerings or Helocausts, but all Free-will-Offerings were Expiatory, notwithstanding what Crellius affirms, viz. that they were Eucharistical, and therefore were not Expiatory. But we must know that That Epithet doth not respect the End which those Sacrifices were design'd for, but the occasion of their Offering them. As for the name of Peace-Offerings, that was given to this sort of Sacrifices, not only because they were offer'd in way of Return for their Peace, i. e. (as the Hebrew word denotes) their Safety and Welfare which were vouchsafed to them, but because the offering of them did also procure Peace with God, and did assure them of the like Blessing for the fu∣ture from the same Propitious Hand. And therefore tho in another Dispensation I distinguish'd between Eucha∣ristical and Expiatory Sacrifices, yet there is no reason to do so here, when I am speaking of the Mosaick Sacri∣fices,

all or most of which have on them the evident marks and tokens of Expiation. They were appointed to propitiate and appea••e God's Wrath, and therefore might all of them be call'd Pacifick, as well as some. That these Peace-Offerings were Expiatory, is proved from this, that here was putting the Beast to Death, here was Sprinkling the Blood, here was the Consumption of some part of the Beast on the Altar as an Oblation to God, which are the three Ingredients of an Expiatory Sacrifice.

But what was this Expiation which was made by the Mosaick Sacrifices? I answer, It was threesold: 1. In respect of Corporal Punishment. The Sanction of the whole Mosaick Law is express'd in Deut. 27. 26. Gal. 3. 10. Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the Law to do them. Which Curse imports no less then Death it self, besides all the miseries of this life. But God was pleas'd to mitigate the rigour of this Sanction; and whereas ac∣cording to the strictness of the Law those who were found guilty of violating it were to Die, this was not put in Execution, but Beasts were appointed to suffer death for the Offenders, and their death was accepted for the death of Sinners. 2. These Sacrifices Expiated as to Legal and Bodily Impurities, which separated them from publick Converse and Worship. Such were Leprosy, Touching the Dead, &c. Hence the Author of the Epistle to the Hebr••ws saith, that they Sanctified to the pu∣rifying of the Flesh, Heb. 9. 13. 3. These Sacrifices (which is the most considerable thing of all) Expiated for Moral Impurities, viz. all sorts of Sins.

I know it is asserted by some Men of great Learn∣ing, when they discourse of Sacrifices, that the Mo∣saick Law gave no pardon to he••••ous Sinners, that great Offences were not expiated by Scarifices. This is more especially held by 〈◊〉〈◊〉, who urges, that the Sacrifices under the Law were available only for lesser

Sins, not for1 1.191 great ones. And2 1.192 Volkelius and other profes'd Socinians, insist upon the same thing, and la∣bour to prove, that Sacrifices were offer'd only for ex∣piating of Sins of Lgnorance, Weakness and Error, and that Death was the Penalty of all great and enormous Offences. The same is defended by3 1.193 Smalcius, as the Reader may find it in his Writing. And we are told by4 1.194 one of our own Divines, that

the Jewish Reli∣gion allow'd of no Expiation but for legal Impuri∣ties and involuntary Transgressions, such as proceed∣ed from Ignorance and Inadvertency, but not for Sins of Presumption, and such as were committed with an high hand. If Men sinned wilfully, there was no Sacrifice appointed by the Law for such Sins.

And5 1.195 another of great repute in our Church agrees with him, saying,

The greater Crimes under the Law were no otherwise to be expiated but by the Blood of the Offender himself: whereas for lesser ones the Blood of Beast was accepted.

And this passes for a general Opinion with us, and not without a great shew of Reason, for it seems to be founded on the Mosaick Law it self: there we see that Idolatry, Murder, Blasphemy, &c. were always punish'd with Death, unless the special Favour of God interposed. There was no Sacrifice permitted to expiate the pro∣••anation of the Sabbath, for it is expresly said, Every¦one that defileth the Sabbath shall surely be put to death, Exod. 31. 14. Nor could he that eat the Sacrifice, whilst he was in his Vncleanness, be pardon'd; for this is his Doom, That Soul shall be cut off from his People,

Levit. 7. 20, 21. There was no Sacrifice admitted for Adultery, or for disobeying of Parents: In short, Sins of Ignorance only were expiated by the Mosaick Sacri∣fices, but all Sins of Presumption remain'd unatoned; which they prove from Numb. 15. 28, 30. The Priest shall make an atonement for the Soul that sinneth igno∣rantly. But the Soul that doth ought presumptuously shall be cut off from among his People. So that Sins of Obstinacy and Malice had no Sacrifice allow'd: the Of∣fenders were either put to death by the Magistrate, or cut off by God.

But notwithstanding all this that is alledged, it seems to me very evident, that the guilt of all Sins whatso∣ever, if they were heartily repented of, was atoned by the Mosaick Sacrifices. For when those of the other Opinion say there was no Expiation for greater Sins, it must be meant either of Internal or External Sins. Now it is generally confess'd, that God appointed Sacri∣fices and Expiations for the greatest Sins of the Heart and Mind, as Unbelief, blasphemous Thoughts, idola∣trous Imaginations, desires of Murder, uncleanness of the Heart, &c. for even some of the best Men it is like∣ly were not free from these mental Pollutions. Who can imagine that there was no atonement for these un∣der the Law? Can we think that all perish'd who were at any time guilty of these? No certainly; they were pardon'd through God's Mercy upon Repentance, and the appointed means of sacrificing. And as for visible and outward gross Enormities, tho there may seem to be no provision made in the Mosaick Law for their Ex∣piation, because the Offenders were presently punish'd with Death; yet it doth not follow thence, that there was no Expiation for those notorious Crimes, for they might be expiated, tho it was fitting and necessary that they should be animadverted upon by a severe Penalty, le••t Impunity should encourage Men in Sin and Vice. When we find then in Moses's Law, that such as were

guilty of Adultery, Murder, Incest, &c. were not ex∣empted from Capital Punishment; we cannot thence infer that Sacrifices purg'd none from the guilt of these Enormities, and that the Legal Offerings were design'd only to expiate for smaller Aberrations: for the reason why those great Offenders were punish'd, was not be∣cause there were no Sacrifices and Oblations to clear them of their Guilt, but because it was requisite Death should be the Recompence of those Crimes, lest the Common∣wealth should be endamaged and ruined by suffering such to go unpunish'd. But even the guilt of these hei∣nous Sins, if those that committed them sincerely re∣pented of them, was expiated by those daily Offerings which were made for the Sins of the People, and by the frequent Trespass-Offerings, notwithstanding the in∣fliction of the corporal Punishment. The Propitiatory Sacrifices were available even to those who suffer'd for their Sins. They were able through God's Appoint∣ment, to remove the Guilt, the not the Punishment.

Is it not acknowledg'd (and that because it is ma∣nifest from several Instances) that the Crimes of Per∣sons have been forgiven and pardon'd, tho they them∣selves were not exempted from the Penalty? Moses's Death was the Recompence of his Unbelief, tho none doubts of his expiring in the Divine Favour. David was punish'd with the Death of his Child, tho we read that his Sin was pardon'd. Iosiah was justly snatch'd away in Battel, because he ingag'd in it against the Di∣vine Will and Command; but yet he died in peace, i. e. in the Favour of God, and was transmitted to the place of Everlasting Peace and Happiness. Wherefore I ga∣ther hence, that tho Death was made by Moses's Law the penal Consequence of Adultery, Disobedience to Parents, Violation of the Sabbath Day, &c. yet whoever among such Criminals as these turn'd unto God by an unfeign'd detestation of the Sins they committed, had without doubt the benefit of the Legal Sacrifices, which

expiated the Offences of all true Penitents tho they were never so great.

And the reason is this, because this Institution or Or∣dinance of Sacrificing was the standing means of Sal∣vation in the Jewish Dispensation; and therefore it was requisite that the influence of it should extend to all Sin∣ners that were heartily sorry for their Offences, and ab∣horr'd their past Crimes, yea and themselves for being guilty of them. This we must grant, unless we will say, that no heinous Sinners under the Law were ever pardon'd and receiv'd to Mercy: which is an assertion that is easily baffled by a great many Instances which the Old Testament records. It was in the was of Sacrifi∣ces that these Persons had their Guilt remitted and ex∣piated, for there was no other Expedient or Remedy at that time, as we are assured, not only from the End and Design of instituting the Sacrifices, which was to take away Sin, but from those express words of the Apostle, (which refer to this manner of Expiation) without shedding of Blood there is no Remission, Heb. 9. 22. This then being the only way of Remission and Pardon of Sin, it was certainly efficacious; and even those who were cut off from their People, (tho this Doom doth not always signify immature Death, and therefore can't be absolutely made use of here) or were cut off from the Land of the Living, and their Sins atoned by the Law of Sacrifices, supposing (as hath been said before) that they repented from their Hearts of their vile and flagiti∣ous Miscarriages.

And this may be further made good from that plain distinction of Chattah and Asham, the Sin Offering and the Trespass Offering, the one being design'd to remove the Guilt of petty Declensions, the other to make sa∣tisfaction for gross and enormous Crimes. And more∣over, this is plain from Levit. 5. 4, 15. where Sacri∣fices are commanded to be offer'd for great Crimes, as unlawful swearing and sacrilege. And the A••niversary

Oblation in Levit. 16. 16, &c. was not only for their Vncleannesses, but for for their Transgressions in all their Sins. But as for the sin of Presumption, or sinning with a high hand, (as 'tis in the Hebrew) Numb. 15. 30. it in∣cludes in this place Impenitence and final Obstinacy; and therefore it is no wonder that there was no Atone∣ment for it, for even the Alsufficient Merit of Christ Je∣sus doth not expiate for this Sin; but all other Sins were atoned by Sacrifices. I see no reason to the con∣trary, and therefore I beg leave to dissent from those who assert, that these Sacrifices expiated only for lesser Sins and Failings, and not for the greater ones of exter∣nal idolatry, Murder, Blasphemy, and the like. It is not to be doubted that all kinds and degrees of Sin were expiated by the legal Sacrifices; not only corporal Punishment (in the sense which I have explain'd) and legal Uncleanness, but all moral Impurity and Guilt were taken away by them. But this the Mosaick Sacri∣fices did not do of themselves, but by virtue only of the Expiatory Sacrifice of the MESSIAS to come, of which they were but Shadows. To speak properly and strictly, they did not really and formally, but typically expiate, i. e. as they were Significations and Figures of that great Sacrifice to be offer'd.

Lastly then, the grand and principal End of the Ju∣daical Sacrifices was to typify and represent the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. Socinus denies not that the An∣niversary Sacrifice on the Day of Expiation was a Type of Christ's Death: But as for the other common and usual Sacrifices, he1 1.196 holds that Christ was not prefi∣gured by them, but that the Spiritual Sacrifices of Christians were only typified thereby. This is a gross Error, for the Burnt-Offerings, and Sin-Offerings, and Peace-Offerings, which were common and frequent,

were Expiatory Sacrifices (as I shew'd before) and they were as much Expiatory as that which was but once a Year. Now, being Expiatory, they, as such, were Types of the great Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Lamb of God, they prefigured Christ's Death, and the Ex∣piation and Satisfaction which he was to make for Sin. It is a strange thing therefore to me that Socinus, who denies Christ to be a Propitiatory Sacrifice, should grant that the Sacrifice which the High Priest offer'd once a Year, entring into the Holy of Holies, prefigured the Death of Christ; for the same reason he ought to grant, that all the Expiatory Sacrifices of the Law were Types of our Saviour. And he could not but see that the Holy Ghost in Scripture doth, not only speak of that Annual Sacrifice as a prefiguration of Christ's Passion, and apply it expresly to him in Heb. 9. 12. By his own Blood ••e entred in once into the Holy Place; but the same Infallible Spirit in that Epistle, applieth what is said of the other Sacrifices unto Christ: Therefore the Apostle saith, Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us, 1 Cor. 15. 7. Therefore Iohn the Baptist call'd our Sa∣viour the Lamb of God who takes away the Sins of the World, John 1. 29. having respect, without doubt, to the Expiatory Sacrifices of the Old Testament, which prefigured Christ the true Immaculate Lamb, the Lamb that was slain (as the same inspired Writer speaks) from the Foundation of the World, Rev. 13. 8. Christ's Offering was the Idea and Pattern of all the Levitical and Mosaical Sacrifices. To this very end God insti∣tuted these, that they might shadow out that to us. A greater and better Sacrifice, and Oblation of a higher nature was to succeed those, viz. the Sacrifice of Christ Jesus, by which God is appeased, and all our Sins are expiated: and therefore the Phrase of a sweet-smelling Savour applied to Expiatory Sacrifices under the Law, is used (and that properly) by the Apostle concerning

Christ his giving up1 1.197 himself for us, and pacifying God's Wrath on our behalf. That the Legal Sacrifices were Types and Symbols of spiritual things, is acknowledg'd by2 1.198 Philo; but we who have an infallible information from the New Testament are taught further, viz. that they were Types of Christ the great Sacrifice. And we have the greatest reason imaginable to assent to this, because the Blood of Bulls and Goats was a poor Ex∣piation of it self. That Butchery, that bloody Em∣ployment could have no real and intrinsick worth in it, and therefore it must needs have been in order to some∣thing else; it was to prefigure the expiatory Death and Sacrifice of the Massias. And all the time that these Mosaick Sacrifices lasted, they did not pacify God's Anger, and satisfy his Justice, and take away Sin, and justify Persons by their own Force and Virtue, or by their own worthiness; but they did all this typically and mystically, as they represented Christ and his Merit, who was the Great Sacrifice; they did it by Divine Or∣der and Institution.

CHAP. VI.

The High-Priest's Office. His peculiar Attire. The Imployment and Apparel of the Priests. The Levites Particular Charge. Whether they might sacrifice, or no. Their Office in the Reigns of King David and King Solomon, differ'd in some things from what it was be∣fore. The ordinary and fixed Place of Wor∣ship, and particularly of Sacrificing, was the Tabernacle. A particular Account of the three Divisions or Partitions of it, viz. the Out∣ward Court, the Holy Place, and the Holy of Holies, with all things contain'd in them. The Mystical and Spiritual meaning of the several Particulars. The Travels and Re∣moves of the Tabernacle and Ark. A distinct Account of the Parts of the Temple, shewing wherein it differ'd from the Tabernacle. Of the Fabrick it self, and its Dimensions. Houses and Chambers belonging to it. The Sacraments appointed by the Ceremonial Law.

HAving spoken of Sacrifices, we will now in the second place speak of the Sacrificers, the Persons that officiated in the Ceremonial Worship under the Law. There were three Orders of these, the first whereof was the High-Priest: For tho there were Priests before the Law, who were Fathers and Heads, and the First-born of Families, yet we read of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 High-Priest. This

Office is now added, and Aaron had it first of all, to whose House it was tied by Divine Institution. But it conti∣nued not long there▪ only Eleazer succeeded his Father Aaron, and upon Eleazer's Death three Priests of his Family successively were High-Priests: Then the Of∣fice went out of the House of Aaron, and came to Eli of the Family of Ithamar. But generally afterwards the High Priesthood was by succession of Blood, and lineally descended from the Father to the Son: or, if there were no Son, to the next of the Kindred. This High Priest was the great and supreme Ecclesiastical Minister among the Iews: And even according to1 1.199 Philo and some other Iews, was a Type of the Messias. His Of∣fice was in common with that of the Priests (of whom afterwards) to pray for, instruct and bless the People: but his peculiar Province was to preside over the Priests and other inferior Officers of the Church, to take care that they discharg'd their Function aright. Whereas these administred daily, he was obliged to officiate on∣ly on the solemn Day of Expiation. He differ'd from them in the manner of his Consecration, and was pecu∣liar in some other things. He had the singular honour to be the Metropolitan of the Jewish Church, and the President of the Great Council or Sanhedrim.

To make him more pompous and venerable, the Law took care of his very Attire. I will only shew you this Sacred Wardrobe, (and truly if the Holy Ghost in Scripture was pleas'd to make mention of it, and to describe it, it cannot be improper here to repeat it) and then leave Origen, Ierom, Durandus, Erasmus, and others, to comment upon the several Parts, and to give you the moral and mystical Sense of them. 1. There were Linen Breeches which the High Priest was injoin'd to wear to cover his nakedness, Exod. 28. 42. that is, that

his secret Parts might not be exposed, whenever it chanced that the Wind blew up his upper Garments: for the Men in those Eastern Countries wore long Gar∣ments hanging down low, without Breeches; whence we read that David was uncover'd in those Parts when he danc'd before the Ark, 2 Sam. 6. 20. That the High Priest therefore might not be liable to this Inde∣cency and Inconvenience, when he administred in Sacred things, or at any other time, he was commanded to wear these Bre••ches or Drawers of Linen. 2. There was Ketonah (from whence perhaps 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) a Tunick or Coat, Exod. 28. 39. It was of fine Linen, and white, and had Sleeves, and reach'd down beyond the Ankles. It was properly the Shirt, for it was that Garment which was worn next to his flesh; only it was closer than a Shirt, and it was curiously woven with artificial Figures. 3. Over these was Mechil, a Robe of Blue, Exod. 28. 31. which answer'd exactly to the Ephod both in wideness and shape, tho not as to length. At the bottom or skirts of this Robe, instead of Fringes, hung 72 Pomegranates of Blue, Purple and Scarlet, and as many golden Bells. 4. The Ephod, which was a short Garment without sleeves, but most artificially wrought with Gold, Purple and broider'd Work in di∣vers figures and colours, and thereby made very beauti∣ful and glorious. It was worn over all the other Gar∣ments but the Girdle; it had two holes on the sides to let the Arms come through; and they put it on over their Heads as a Surplice is put on. This imbroider'd Cope was remarkable for these following things; First, On the shoulders of it were set two great Onyx Stones, whereon were grav'd the Names of the Children of Israel, Exod. 28. 9. that is, of the twelve Tribes, six on one Stone, and six on another. These precious Gems were set in Gold, with two Chains of Gold hanging at them. Secondly, On the fore-part of this Garment there

was fastned a four-square piece of Cloth doubled; the breadth and length of it were the dimension of a span, imbroider'd with Gold, and adorn'd with twelve pre∣cious Stones, Exod. 28. 15. They were of four Clas∣ses or Rows, and there were three Stones in each Class; and the name of one of the twelve Tribes of Israel was ingraved in each of the 12 Stones. In this four-square piece there were also contained the Vrim and Thummim, of which I will distinctly speak when I give you a Cata∣logue of the several ways of Divine Revelation. This fore-part of the Garment was called Coshen, the Pecto∣ral or Breast-plate, and sometimes the Breast-plate of Iudgment; and also by the Vulgar Latin Version Ratio∣nale: which answers to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Translation of the Septuagint. This was fastned to the Ephod with golden Chains and Rings, and might be put on or off on occa∣sion. This Breast-plate was of the same artificial com∣posure and curious work with the Ephod, i. e. it was of fine Linen of divers colours imbroider'd with Gold. Thirdly, This Garment was remarkable for the Gir∣dle or Belt with which it was surrounded, Exod. 28. 39. This was made of the same materials and embroider'd work with the Ephod. This Pontifical Shash (and who knows but this word is originally the same with Shesh, which is the usual word in Scripture for fine Linen, of which the Eastern Girdles were made?) was useful to tie the rest of the High-Priest's Habits close, especially when he was call'd to his publick Work and Ministry, for then it girt them so together, that they were no impediment to him in that Service. 5. There was a Mitr••; or Bonnet of fine Linen, which was wrapt up in several folds, and worn a∣bout his head, Exod. 28. 39. On the fore-front of which Mitre was tied with a blue Lace a Plate of Gold two fingers broad (call'd a Crown, and the Plate of the Holy Crown, Exod. 28. 36. & 39. 30▪ for the Antients

call'd any thing that was tied about the head, a Crown or a Diadem) in which Holiness to the Lord, and the Name of Ieh••vah was ingraven. In this gay Attire the Iewish Pentif appear'd as often as he officiated, and at all great and solemn Times. This indeed was an At∣tire fit to be been only on Holy-days: But especially when he was to enter into the Holy of Holies (which was the peculiar Dignity of the High Priest) to consult and know God's Will, he was seen to shine in this Glo∣rious Array; a great part of which was as to the matter and shape of it such as Kings and Princes wore, as a very knowing1 1.200 Iew expresly testifies. However we are certain that these Vestments were appointed for Glory and for Beauty, Exod. 28. 2. to represent the Person and Office of the High Priest, Glorious and Beautiful, he being a type of him who was the Glory of his Peo∣ple Israel, Luke 2. 32.

Secondly, Priests are the next Order: whose Office was now fixed to a certain Family, whereas before it was executed by any Head of Father of a Family, or by the First-born, as was said before. As the High Priest∣hood was now confined to the Line of Aaron's first-born, so the Priests were the Successors of Aaron's other Children, Exod. 28. 1. And afterwards the Priest∣hood was solemnly settled and entail'd on the Family of Levi, Numb. 3. 5. & 25. 13. This particular Tribe was dedicated to the Priest's Office, and so it went by Succession and Birth-right. As to the Imployment or Office of the Priests, it was to offer Sacrifices for the People to God (Numb. 3 & 4.) to intercede for them with him; to bless the People, Numb. 6. 23. and to expound and teach the Law, Levit. 10. 11. They were the ordinary Instructers of the People, as Prophets were the extraordinary ones▪ The Priest's Lips kept Knowledg, and they sought the Law at his Mouth; for

he is the M••••••enger of the Lord of Plosts, Mal. 2. 7. Moreover, the Priests were imploy'd sometimes in the Courts of Judicature, they were Judges in Causes both Spiritual and Civil, Levit. 10 & 13. D•••••• 17. 8, &c. Ezek. 44. 24. But tho these things were their chief Im∣ployment, yet they did also, when there was occasion, a•••••• in the carrying of the Av••••, and in looking after the Vessels of the Tab••••nacle. David a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 wards, when the Ark was settled, appointed 24 Orders or Cours••s of Priests: and there was a Chief of every one of those O••ders. Both in the Tabe••nacle and in the Temple they officiated in their Courses according to the several Ranks they were divided into. In the time of their at∣tendance they watch'd in their turns all night, 1 Sam. 3. 3. whence they are call'd the Servants of the Lord, who by Night stand in the House of the Lord, Psal. 134. 1. It is likely the four and twenty Elders, Rev. 4. 4. have reference to these four and twenty Orders or Class••s of Priests. These Priests likewise had Ap∣parel to distinguish them from the People. Some think they had as many Garments, and the very same with the High Priest excepting the Ephod. Not to ingage in this needless Controversy, this we are certain of, that the rich and sumptuous Cope to which the Br••••st-plat•• and the Vrim and Thummi•• belong'd, was peculiar to the High Priest alone. But there was another Ephod which was common to Priest and Levites, 1••. Sam. 22. 18. this was made of white. Linen, and was an ordina∣ry Surplice▪ and this Garments others besides Priests might use in God's Ser••••••, as David did. Or it may be, when we read that David was gird••d with a L•••••••• Ephod, 2•• Sam. 6. 14. it is not meant of the Sacred Pri••••••ly Habit so call'd, but of any other Garment, for 1 1.201 Eph•••• signifies a Covering in general. But the Ep••••••

(strictly taken) was proper and peculiar to the High Priest, which he wore as the particular and distinguish∣ing Livery of his Lord and Master.

The Third Order or Rank was Levites, so call'd, because they were of the Tribe of Levi; tho 'tis cer∣tain (as hath been said before) that the Tribe of Levi consisted of Priests as well as Levites. The Levites were distinguish'd, according to Levi's three Sons, in∣to Gershonites, Cohathites, and Morarites. Concern∣ing the particular and distinct Office of these Levites, there is some difference among the Learned; for some say it was the proper Work of the Levites to carry and pitch the Tabernacle and Ark, and to carry and take care of all the Utensils belonging to both. Others say it was none of their Office to carry the Ark, but only to carry and take care of the Tabernacle and all its Vessels. And whereas that Text 2 Chron. 5. 4. is alledged against them, where 'tis expresly said, the Levites car∣ried the Ark; they answer thus in Scripture, the Priests are sometimes call'd Levites, (yea, a certain1 1.202 Rabbin tells us, that no less than 24 times they are call'd so) but at other times these are distinct Names: and this may occasion the Controversy. When therefore it is said, the Levites carried the Ark, the meaning is, that the Priests who were of Levi's Race did so; for this was the Priest's Work, as the Levites employment was to carry the Tabernacle, and Utensils of it. But from a due comparing of what is said on both sides. I am bold to affirm this as the truth in this matter, viz. that both Priests and Levites bore the Ark; but it was ordinarily and chiefly the Levites Office. Yet might not those Levites touch any of the Holy things which they carried till they were covered by the Priests, Numb. 4. 15. Vzzah therefore was smitten, not only because

he suffered the Ark to be carried on a Cart, (which they should have carried on their Shoulders according to the Law) but because he touched the Holy things con∣trary to the Law in Numb. 4. 11. or, it may be he touched some part of the Ark, which was forbid to be touched. So then the Office of a Levite in Moses's days, and some time after, was to bear up and down the Ark and the Tabernacle, and to look after the seve∣ral things appeartining to them. And tho the Priests might do something of this, yet the L••vit•• could not do any thing of the Priest's main Office, which was Sa∣crificing.

But here we must distinguish, or else we shall not un∣derstand this Point aright. We must make a difference between private and publick Sacrificing, and between ordinary and extraordinary Sacrificing, and between Sacrificing and assisting at Sacrifice. On a private Altar others besides Priests might sacrifice: so Samuel did, who was but a L••vit••, 1. Sam. 7. 10. And so Elkanah, who was but of that Order, 1 Sam. 1. 3. And tho it is said he went up to sacrifice at Shiloh, the publick Place of yearly Sacrificing, yet he might sacrifice on a private Altar, and on a private account: or, he as∣sisted the Priest in Sacrificing. Some have asserted, that those who were neither Priests nor L••vit••s might sacrifice thus, and they say Saul did so; and that Saul is rebuked, not for Sacrificing, but for not staying the full time of God's appointment, 1 Sam. 10. 8. But if you consult 1 Sam. 13. 8. you will see that Saul tarried seven days, according to the set time which Sa∣muel had appointed. Therefore it is clear that Saul in∣vaded the Priest's Office; for Kings cannot sacrifice as Kings. Vzziah incroached on the Priest's Office, and you read the effect of it in 2 Chron. 26. 21. If David before this sacrificed with his own hands, (which is question'd by some) it may be said he was an extraor∣dinary Person, and extraordinarily moved thereto. So

Gi••••••••n and Elias were not capacitated according to the Law to sacrifice, yet they perform'd that Office them∣selves, they being in an extraordinary manner stir'd up by God to do it. As for M••ses, we read that he exe∣cuted part of the Priestly Office about Sacrificing, Exod. 24. 5, &c. Levit. 8. 22. but that also was an extraor∣dinary Act, and we always allow for such, and never make them a Rule in the matter we are speaking of. Besides, Moses himself was an extraordinary Person: he was a compound of Priest as well as Magistrate, or else he could not have consecrated Aaron and his Sons, Ex••d. 29. 35. Nay, he had the Character of a High Priest, for he went into the Holy of Holies, where none could enter but the High Priest, Exod. 25. 22. In Psal. 99. 6. you find M••ses call'd a Priest as well as Aaron. Hence it appears that he was an extraordinary Person, and that what he did was unusual and extraor∣dinary, particularly as to his Sacrificing, But we speak not of the ordinary Sacrificing, which we rightly as∣sert to belong to the Order of Priests only, and not to that of L••vit••s, or to any other sort of Men whatso∣ever. Tho Priests were permitted to officiate in some things that respected the L••vit••s Office, and every Priest might be said to be a L••vit••s, yet no Levite was a Priest, i. e. could take upon him to sacrifice publick∣ly, ordinarily, and as the chief Sacrificer. But when∣ever he discharg'd the Office of Sacrificing, he did it on a private account, and in private places: he did it also on some singular and unwonted occasion: he was not the principal Offerer, but only subservient (as D••a∣c••ns are with us to Priests) he might be busy in pre∣paring all things for the Priest, and in order to Sacri∣ficing. Whenever you read in Scripture that the L••∣vit••s sacrificed, it is to be understood in these accepti∣ons. The short is, the Levites were the Priests Mini∣sters and Servants, and not Priests, which was a higher Office. And that they were inferior to the Priests, ap∣peared

in their paying the Tithe of their Tithes to the Priests, as if in respect of the Priests they were a kind of Laymen.

But tho the Levites never mingled the Priestly Of∣fice with theirs, yet it is to be taken notice of, that in David's time they were somewhat altered and advanced; for that pious King having settled the Tabernacle, Ark, and Priesthood, appointed the Levites also their Charges and Administrations, and as to some things added to their Office and Imployment. He chose some of them Singers and Musicians, and Officers about the Taberna∣cle. At last in Solomon's time, when there was no Tabernacle or Ark to carry about, but a Temple was erected, and all things fixed, it must needs follow that that part of the Levite's Work ceased. Now their standing Task was to assist at the Altar in the time of Sacrificing, to help in the Service of the Temple, and openly to teach and instruct the People, and to be As∣sessors sometimes with the Priests in Courts of Judica∣ture. Thus you see there was some difference and variety in the Function of the Levites, according to the diffe∣rent Times of this O••conomy. So much concerning the three Holy Orders of Ministers in the Iewish Church, which seem to have been fitted to the three Divisions and Apartments of the Tabernacle. The Tabernacle consisted of the Court, the Holy, and the most Holy Place. Accordingly the L••vit••s minist••red in the Court, waiting there on the Priests, and helping them about their Offerings and Sacrifices. The Priests did Service in the holy Place, for they only were admitted hither to offer Incense daily. And the High Priests alone of∣ficiated in the most holy Place. Of these distinct Apart∣ments (whether you respect the Tabernacle or Temple) I am to give you an Account next.

Thirdly, The Place of the Ceremonial Worship a∣mong the Jews is to be consider'd. For now under the Mosaical O••conomy a certain place of Worship was

fixed, and not before, as you may gather from Levit. 17. 3, 4. D••ut. 12. 5, 13. They erected Altars, and offered Sacrifice in the Fields, or where they thought good: but a Tabernacle and Temple are proper to the Iewish Dispensation. In these set and appointed Places they were commanded to sacrifice, and not in any other, Levit. 17. 5. yet they did not punctually observe this: there are several Examples in Scripture of Persons who offered Sacrifice in other places besides the Tabernacle and Temple. This then is to be said, that tho the place of ordinary Sacrificing was determined, yet upon extraordinary Occasions it was lawful to sacrifice in any place, as Samuel intimates he might sacrifice in Iesse's House, 1 Sam. 16. 2. And we read that Elijah sacri∣ficed on Mount Carmel, 1 Kings 18. 19, 22. Neither were the High Places forbidden them altogether, as ap∣peareth from 1. Sam. 9. 11, 12. The High Places were used for Sacrifice among the Iews, who were no Idola∣ters, from the time that the Ark and the Tabernacle were removed from Shilo••. L•••• places were not thought so worthy of God's Worship:1 1.203 Altars were named from their height: the Temple at Ierusalem was built on a Hill. Yea the Tabernacle, before that, was placed on Hills, in David's time: whence are those Expressions in Psal. 87. 1. & 121. 1. & 133. 3. unless you will say these Psalms were not penn'd by David, but after the building of the Temple, which will be very hard to prove. The high Places then are condemned in Scrip∣ture, and commanded to be destroyed, because they were used to superstitious and idolatrous Worship: and the Gentiles chose these places, because they were nearer Heaven than others, they2 1.204 thought the Gods could

hear their Prayers sooner thence than from the low Val∣leys. Otherwise the Iews were not forbid to worship God on Hills and High places, nor indeed in any places, if there were Vrgent Occasion for it. This liberty you will find granted in Exod. 20. 24. But for the Vsual, Ordinary and Fixed Worship of God, the Tabernacle first was erected: to which afterwards succeeded the Temple, which is sometimes call'd the Tabernacle, Jer. 10. 20. Lam. 4. 2, 6. and the Tabernacle is sometimes call'd the Temple, 1 Sam. 1. 9. & Chap. 3. Ver. 3. The Rea∣son of which interchanging of names was because the Tabernacle was a moveable Temple, and the Temple was a fix'd and immoveable Tabernacle.

The Iewish Tabernacle (which was first erected when they came out of Egypt into the Wilderness, and was the first fixed place for Oblations, Sacrifices, Hearing the Law, Publick Praying, &c.) stood East and West, as appears from Num. 3. 38. The Entrance into it was at the East end, and there we will begin, for I will speak, 1. Of the Court of the Tabernacle. 2. Of the Body of it, or the Holy Place. 3. Of the Holy of Holies. And this I will do not only to give a brief Account of this most Remarkable Piece of Iewish Antiquity, but to clear some passages of Scripture which relate to it, and to rec∣tify some mistakes (and those of no mean Writers) con∣cerning it.

1. There was the Court of the Tabernacle, which was very large and spacious, for it was an hundred Cubits in length, Exod. 27. 9. and fifty Cubits in breadth, ver. 12. This Atrium, or P••rch, or Outward Court of the Taber∣nacle (for it hath these several Names) was that open Place or Yard before it which was without any covering or roof: but it was enclosed or bounded on the sides with Hangings and Pillars, Exod. 27. 9, &c. This Court was divided into several lesser Apartments or Di∣visions, and thence we read of Courts in the plural, Psal. 65. 5. & 84. 3. one place was for the Priests, ano∣ther

for the People that were Men; a third perhaps for the Women: but there is nothing express concerning this, and therefore I can't be positive here. In general we are certain that in this Court the People met for Divine Wor∣ship, hither they brought all their Offerings, and here the Priests took them of them, and here they Prayed, and Heard, and stood all the while the Priests sacrificed. The West part of this Atrium, and which was next the Bo∣dy of the Temple, was the place where the Priests sacri∣ficed. Here was the Great Altar on which the Beasts were daily slain, and utterly consumed by fire. This Al∣tar of Hol••causts or Burnt-Offerings was four-square, be∣ing five cubits long, and five cubits broad: but it was but three cubits high. We may take notice here by the by, that Altars were of two sorts. 1. Extemporaneous, Occasional and Extra••rdinary: and these were made ei∣ther of Earth, i. e. Green Turf, Ex••d. 20. 24. (Such as these were used upon occasion by Moses, Toshua, Samuel, Elias, and others) or (if they could not have convenient Turf) they might make them of Stone, as they did in the Wilderness, Ex••d. 20. 25. But these Altars were not to be made of H••w••n Stone, and the as∣cent to them was to be made without steps, i. e. the Earth was to be laid so as that it should rise by little and little, as you learn in this place of1 1.205 Ex••du••. 2. There were Fixed, Setled, and Ordinary Altars for Sacrifice, such as those in the Tabernacle and Temple; and these were made of Wood overlaid either with Gold or Brass. Of this latter sort was this Altar in the Court of the Taber∣nacle. Exod. 27. 1, 2. It was made with four H••rns, on which they that fled for Refuge were wont to lay hold, and to these Horns the Sacrifices also were tyed. In this Court was the Brazen Laver (as well as the Brazen Altar) in which was contain'd Water for the

Priests to wash their hands and feet with before they of∣fer'd Sacrifice, and before they went into the Holy Place, or before they undertook any Holy Work belonging to the Tabernacle. This Laver stood at the entrance of the Court of the Tabernacle, a little on the South side: it had C••cks or Spouts at the lower part of it (which are meant by the foot of it, Exod. 30. 18.) to let out the Wa∣ter for the foresaid use.

2. The Body of the Tabernacle, the Sanctum, the H••∣ly Place, the Tabernacle of Testimony, the Sanctuary (for it hath these different Names) is next to be spoken of. Here was placed the Altar of Incense, overlayd with Gold, on which was burnt Frankincense and other sweet Persumes morning and evening: for as there were daily Burnt-Offerings on the Brazen Altar in the Court of the Tabernacle (of which before) so there was every day In∣cense, morning and evening, offer'd and burnt on this Golden Altar within the Sanctuary; Exod. 30. 7, 8. There was also a Golden Censer belonging to this Altar, i. e. a Persuming Pan or Dish to transmit and scatter the scent of the Frankincense round about. And indeed there was great occasion for this sweet Incense and Perfumes at the Altar, Exod. 30. 1, 34. and for those Fragrant Ointments and Ar••matick Oyls which all Holy Persons and things were anointed and tinctured with, Exod. 30. 23. to cause odoriferous smells, because otherwise the scent of the flesh of the Sacrifices, which was continually burnt, would have been very offensive and ungrateful: but these Sweet Odors were a preservative against that ill smell. This Altar was a cubit long, a cubit broad, and two cubits high, and stood close by the entrance into the Holy of Holies. On one side (viz. the North-side) of this Altar was placed the Table of Shew-Bread, or accor∣ding to the Hebr••w the Bread of Faces, because it was placed before the Ark where God was present, it was thus set before God's face looking from the Mercy-Seat. This Shew-Bread consisted of six Loaves set in one dish,

and six in another piled upon one another. These twelve Loaves were changed weekly, the old ones being every Sabbath day taken away, and new ones put in their place. Frankincense in dishes was placed on the two rows of this Shew-Bread, and was burnt every week to the Lord. On the other, viz. the South-side of the Al∣tar, was the Golden Candlestick with seven branches, which were so many Lamps of Oyl. These were bur∣ning all night in the Tabernacle, and put out in the morning, as appears from 1. Sam. 3. 3.

3. There was the Sanctum Sanctorum, the Holy of Holies, or the Holiest of all, as we translate it, Heb. 9. 3. the most Holy Place of the Tabernacle. And it is also call'd the second Tabernacl•• by the Apostle in Heb. 9. 7. viz. in regard of the other last spoken of, which is stiled by the same Holy Writer the first Tabernacle, Heb. 9. 6. Here was the Ark, wherein were laid up the Pot of Manna, Aaron's R••d, and the two Tables of Stone, which last are also called the T••stim••ny, and the Cove∣nant of the Lord, Deut. 4. 13, 23. 1 Kings 8. 21. because God testifyed his Will by them, and because he made a Covenant with the people when he deliver'd them to them. Hence likewise the Ark which contain'd them was call'd the Ark of the T••stim••ny, Exod. 25. 22. and the Ark of the Covenant, Jos. 4. 7. Some think that Aaron's R••d and the Manna were not deposited in the Ark, but in some place near it, for it is not expresly said in the Old Testament that they were put into the Ark. But it is said of both of them, that they were laid up, and kept before the Testimony, Exod. 16. 34. Num. 17. 10. Now, This [before the Testimony] may sig∣nify that they were laid up before the two Tables in the Ark: that is, the two Tables being placed in the chief Apartment of the Ark, the Manna and R••d were laid in another place or apartment of the Ark, just before them. This is the plain and obvious sense according to my ap∣prehension: and the Author to the Hebrews confirmeth it,

for speaking of the Ark he saith expresly that therein w•••• the golden pot that had Manna, and Aaron's Red that budded, and the Tables of the Covenant, Heb. 9. 4. Some would perswade us that therein refers to the Taber••acle and not to the Ark in particular; but such a reference is strain'd and unusual, and therefore we need not admit it, especially when what the Old Testament delivers concer∣ning this matter directs us to another meaning.

The Ark was two Cubits and a half in length, one Cubit and a half in breadth, and one Cubit and a half in heighth. The Covering of the Ark was call'd the Mercy-Seat, and Pr••pitiatory. From this Propitiatory the Oracle was given, yea the place it self was call'd the Oracle, Debir, Psal. 28. 2. (which Name it also re∣tain'd afterwards, 1 Kings 8. 6.) because from that place God spake to the High Priest, and gave Answers concer∣ning what was inquired of. We read that these Answers were delivered from the Vppermost part of the Mercy-Seat, that place which was between the Wings of the Che∣rubims, which hover'd over this Propitiatory.

Of these Cherubims let me give some account, because it is the only thing here that hath any difficulty in it. Concerning these, 1. Some have thought they were Images in the shape of Boys: so the Hebrew Doctors ge∣nerally affirm. 2.1 1.206 Others say they were Images in the likeness of Oxen or Calves, because Cherubim in Chal∣dee and Syriack is Bos, and so is taken in Ezek 10. 14. compared with Ezek. 1. 10. And Ier••boam's Calves were in imitation of these, they say. 3. There are those that hold them to have been Images not of one Shape, but of many. Thus in Ezek 1. 5. the Cherubims had the faces or shapes of a Man, a Lyon, an Ox, an Eagle. Allusively in Rev. 4. 6, 7. the Angels or Cherubim are represented under the distinct shapes of these four Ani∣mal••

severally. It is probable they had the Face and erect Stature of a Man, four Wings like Eagles, the Backs of Lions, with Mains hanging down, the Thighs and Legs of Oxen or Calves. This is the Opinion of 2 1.207 Some. 4 It is thought by Others that the Shape of the Cherubim is not known. Thus the Iewish Anti∣quary tells us that3 1.208 they were winged Animals of such a shape as never was seen by Men. And in another place he saith,4 1.209 no man can say or conceive what Figure the Che∣rubims were of. This might be the best Account (if it be any account at all) supposing that were true which some say, viz. that the Cherubims were never seen by any but the High Priest, who only could go into the Holy of Ho∣lies: and so they were not known to Others. But this (altho very Learned Writers have asserted it) is a mis∣take, for the Cherubims were pictured not only in the Holy of Holies, but on the Veil between that and the Holy Place, and on the Walls and Doors and Vessels of the Temple; 1 Kings 6. 29, 32. 2 Chron. 3. 7. 1 Kings 7. 29. Besides, those Images or Pictures were for Ornament, and therefore were to be exposed to Sight; and consequently the Shape of them was well known.

That they were not any of those Shapes before descri∣bed is probable, if you consider these things: 1. It is likely that those Cherubims described by Ez••ki••l had no affinity with the Cherubims over the Ark; for the Pro∣phet saw them in a Vision only, they were no real things. 2. The Talmudists and Hebr•••• Rabbies were very fanci∣ful people, and so their Opinion is of little value. 3. It appears that some of them had too great a liking to young Boys faces, and thence perhaps this Notion came into

their minds. 4. That God should be so incensed as we read he was, at the making a golden Calf, and yet pre∣sently alter set up Calves over the Ark is not to be be∣lieved. 5. Calves or Oxen are expresly distinguish'd from Cherubims; 1 Kings 7. 29.

But if you will fix on any thing, the most probable is this, that they were the Images and Representations of Angels, the Heavenly Messengers. For what other is the signification of Cherubim in Gen. 3. 24. and so in the 10th and 11th Chapters of Ez••kiel? And what is more usual in Sacted Sc••ipture than to give the name of the thing signified or represented to that which re∣presents the thing? So here, Cherubim are the Angels of Heaven, and the Images of them over the Propi••i••ory are call'd Cherubim for this reason, because they repre∣sent them. And very ••itly are Angels, those Ministring Spiri••s, placed in the Tabernacle or Temple, because this was God's Palace, the Holy of Holies represented Heaven: therefore the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 are placed here as the Servants and Attendants of the Heavenly King; they are always near him, and stand round about him.

I have this further to add to the present Account, that the Holy of Holies had no Window to let in Light: nor had the Holy Place any. But they had 〈◊〉〈◊〉 come in by drawing aside the Veil that was between the Sanctu∣ary and the Outward Court. And they burnt Lamps even in the day time in the Sanctuary, which they did not do in the Holy of Holies, and consequently this lat∣te•• was quite 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Not indeed was there any use or oc∣casion for Light there, because the High Priest visited it but once in a Year; and then upon drawing aside the Vp∣per Veil, which was next the Holy of Holies, the Light of the burning Lamps might be transmitted into this place. But the Priests officiating every day in the Sanc∣tuary, there was need of Light in that place 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and accordingly in the very day time (as well as in the night) the Lamps were burning, for this was according

to the Prescription, Exod. 27. 20. But how could this be if the Lamps were put out in the morning? as we read in 1. Sa••. 3. 3. This is thus reconcil'd by the5 1.210 Iewish Antiquary, who was himself a Priest of the Law, and therefore was no stranger to the Usages of it. Three of the Lamps of the Golden Candlestick, ••aith he, b••••nt all day in the Tabernacle, and the others were lighted in the Evening. It appears hence th••t though the seven Lamps burnt all might long, yet the Custom 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to put some of them out in the morning. Again, I ••ight mention the Veil of the Tabernac••, of which we re••d in Exod. 26. 31. M••••. 27. 57. Heb. 9. 3. which was a thick Curtain drawn between the Holy of Holies and the Body of the Tabernacle, and parted the one from the o∣ther. But there was another Veil (call'd M••••••••, to distinguish it from the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 one, call'd 〈◊〉〈◊〉) which is not taken notice of by Writers, but is certainly meant by the d•••••• of t•••• 〈…〉〈…〉. 26. 36. and the gate of the Court, Exod. 27. 16. For tho the Tabernaole, when it was brought to Shtlob, and af∣terwards, had a Building 〈◊〉〈◊〉 about it, which had Doors to it, and had Lodgings within for the Prieste and Levites, I Chron. 9. 19. yet whilst the Tabemack was in the Wildernese, it had no Doors properly so call'd; but by the Door and Gate in the foremention'd places is meant that Veil or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 which divided the Come of the People from the Apartment of the Priests, of rather it was the Cartain that hung at the entrance of the Sanc∣tuary, therefore call'd the hanging of the Door of the Ta∣bornacle, Exod. 26. 36. and it was of the fome embroi∣der'd: Work with the i•• ward Curtains of the Tabernacle. Which gives me occesion to speak of these and the other Covetings belonging to in, and then I have finished my Desorlption of it. It was on the sides and ends hung

with ten pieces of Tapestry, very artificially wrought, and with divers colours, Exod. 26. 1. and besides these fine inward Hangings (which are call'd Curtains, because they hung in such a fashion) there were others of Goats hair, of Rams skins, &c. which were course in comparison of the former, and were thrown over them to preserve them from the injury of the weather, Exod. 26. 7, &c. And not only the sides and ends, but the Roof of the Taber∣nacle was cover'd with rich Tapestry within, but on the outside with stronger Coverings, the same with those be∣foremention'd: and there were no less than four of these Coverings or Safeguards all particularly specified in the foresaid Chapter. Besides the Curtains or Hangings, there were Boards or Planks on the sides of the Taberna∣cle, to render the Structure more strong, firm and stea∣dy; and these were so artificially fastned together, that they seemed to be all of a piece, and yet they could easily be taken asunder, Exod. 26. 15, to 30.

Now I am oblig'd in the next place to discover briefly the Mystical meaning of all these strange things before mention'd, which appertain to the Furniture of the Ta∣bernacle: for it is reasonable to think that these being so solemnly appointed by God, were not insignificant, but had some Great and Worthy Mysteries couch'd in them. Nay, which is more, we are assured from the Inspired Writings of the New Testament that it was so, for the Tabernacle is said to have been a Figure for the time then present, Heb. 9. 9. i. e. all the time of that way of Ser∣vice and Worship some great Mystery was represented by it. And the Mosaick Priests are said to serve unto the ex∣ample and shadow of heavenly things, Heb. 8. 5. Let us briefly see what these Celestial and Spiritual things were, or at least let us guess and modestly conceive what they were. First, in the Court of the Tabernacle the Altar of Burnt-Offering fitly signified the great Expiatory Sacri∣fice of Christ on the Cross, Heb. 13. 10. And the Laver was a very congruous Symbol of Spiritual Washing and

Purifying, Eph. 5. 26. Tit. 3. 5. Then in the Sanctu∣ary, the Altar of Incense and the Golden Censer plainly denoted the Intercession of the Messias: thereby was sig∣nified that he should pray for us, and offer our Prayers, and make them acceptable to God through his Merits; for the Incense figures the continual sweet Savour and Ac∣ceptableness of the Offering. The Table of Shew bread did not only represent God's Providing a Table and Maintenance for the Israelites whilst they were in the Wilderness, but it teacheth us that God's Church hath his constant Eye and Care, and that he Provideth for it daily, he gives them their Daily Bread: or it signified Christ, who calls himself the Bread of Life, with which the Faithful are nourish'd to eternal life. Or (as things of this nature frequently have divers significations) the Brazen Laver before, and the Shew-Bread here represen∣ted the Two Sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Sup∣per. The Candlestick and Lamps very appositely signify Christ and his Apostles: He is the True Light, and in a secondary sense his Ministers may be call'd so too. The Sacred Oyl belonging to them may set forth the Anoin∣ting of the Spirit, the Vnction from the Holy One, where∣by the faithful are enlightened and know all things, 1 Joh. 2. 20. Or, the Golden Candlestick with Seven Branches may denote the manifold Gifts and Graces of the Holy Ghost, with that Abundant Light which is the Blessing of the Gospel, Rev. 1. 4. & 4. 5.

Lastly, The inmost part of the Tabernacle into which the High Priest enter'd, and none else, is yet a more lively Representation of the Great Mysteries of the Gos∣pel. The Atonement which the High Priest made by Blood, and his offering it in this most Holy Place, and that but once a Year, are all expresly applied to Christ, our Great High Priest, by the Apostle, Heb. 9. 7. & 12. 24. & 9. 22, 24. But more particularly it is worth our observing on this occasion, that tho the High Priest enter'd this place but once a Year, and that

on a set day in the Year, yet he enter'd thrice in that one day. For, first, he went in with the Censer of Coals and the Cup of Incense, and put the Incense upon the Fire before the Lord, Levit. 16. 13. Then he came out, and took the Blood of the Bullock slain at the Al∣tar of Burnt-offering, and went with it into the Holy of Holies, and sprinkled it upon the Mercy-Seat, Levit. 16. 14. Then he came ••orth and carried the Blood of a Goat which was also slain at the foresaid Altar, and sprinkled it upon, or towards the Mercy-Seat, ver. 15. This was the third time of going into the Holy of Ho∣lies. And who sees not that the High Priest's offering of Incense appositely represents the solemn Prayers which our High Priest Jesus offer'd before he became a Sacrifice, which is particularly mention'd Iohn 17. 1, 2, &c? And is it not as plain that the sprinkling of the Blood of the slain Bullock and Goat signified the Blood of Christ crucified apply'd to Believers, to atone for their Sins? For those words of the Apostle, Heb. 13. 10, 11, 12, &c. refer to the Blood of the Beasts brought into the Holy Place to make Atonement, Levit. 16. 27.

In this place was the Ark, the special Symbol of God's Presence, for that carnal People could not believe God was present with them, unless they had some ap∣parent and visible Token of it: Wherefore God was pleas'd so far to indulge their weakness, as to give them this corporeal and sensible Sign of his Presence with them, tho he thought good to remove it sometimes from their sight, to wean them by degrees from that grosser Dispensation. But it is certain that the Ark was a Symbol of mighty import, and represented not only the Divine Presence, but was a Type of Christ Iesus, the incarnate and visible God, in whom the Fulness of the Godhead dwelt bodily. The Oracle from whence God gave answer, was the Figure of the Incarnate Word, who reveal'd the Will of God to us. By the Pot of Manna was signified the hidden Manna vouch∣safed

to all Believers. Aarons Rod that blossomed, figured that efficacious Blessing which is given to the Labours of Christ's Ministers. The Testimony in the Ark, the Witness or Evidence of God's Presence there, represents to us the Word of God, the Holy Scriptures. The Mercy-Seat, or the Covering of the Ark, was a more particular and signal Representation of Christ, by whom alone the Divine Mercy is conferr'd on Mankind; by whose Merits the Church is cover'd and de••ended from God's Wrath. Whom God hath set for••h to be a Pro∣pitiation, Rom. 3. 25. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the very word which the same Apostle uses for the Mercy-Seat, Heb. 9. 5. As the Law in the Ark was cover'd and hid by this, so the Messias covers, hides, shields us from the condem∣nation which is by the Law, and consequently from the Divine Displeasure. Or, which is the same thing, Sin is covered (as the Psalmist speaks, Psal. 32. 1.) by Christ our Propitiatory. And 'tis observable that the Apostle saith, God hath set him forth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which refers to the Prefigurations of the Law: he was before set forth (as the word signifies) he was of old pro∣pounded in the Legal Types, and more signally in this of the Propitiatory.

The Cherubims hovering over the Ark, denote the Angels protecting the Church: and withal it speaks their future prying into the Mysteries of the Gospel, which they desire to look into, as St. Peter saith, 1 Epist. Chap. 1. v. 12. which very words re••er to the Cheru∣bims stooping and looking down with bowed Heads to∣ward the Mercy-Seat. And this by the way lets us know, that those Cherubims over the Ark were Angels. The Veil in the Tabernacle (and so that of the Templ•• afterwards) sets forth the Humane Nature of Christ, if we will give credit to the Apostle, Heb. 10. 10. The V••il, that is to say, his Flesh. This was rent at Christ's Passion, to signify, that he by his Death open'd the way into the Kingdom of Heaven: for we learn

from St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Hebrews, that Hea∣ven was meant by the Holy of Holies, Heb. 9. 24. Whence it is call'd that within the Veil, Heb. 6. 19. And Christian Hope is said to enter into it, because this Grace looks beyond the Afflictions and Calamities of this Life, into that place of endless Glory.1 1.211 Ioseph the Learned Iew gives his Suffrage here, and declares, that this part of the Tabernacle was a Type of the Ce∣lestial Mansions above.2 1.212 Other Learned Jews acknow∣ledg'd this place to be a Typical Representation of Hea∣ven. Yea, the whole Tabernacle was, if we may so speak, God's Heaven here below, for it was the place of his special Presence and Habitation. To which pur∣pose I could observe that Blue or Sky-colour, which de∣notes Heaven, God's Seat, was very much made use of in the Tabernacle, and all the Sacred Ornaments be∣longing to it.

To conclude, The Presence of God with his People, the Glorious Undertakings of the Son of God, the Gra∣cious Influence of the Holy Spirit, the State of Christ's Church both here and hereafter, were shadow'd forth by the several things which were contain'd in the distinct Partitions of the Mosaick Tabernacle. I do not pre∣tend to affirm that there are no other Mystical and Spi∣ritual meanings of these things but what I have men∣tion'd: But as I am sure in the general that a mystical Sense was intended by the Holy Ghost, as is evident from the greatest part of the Epistle to the Hebrews; so the particular meaning which I have offer'd may be ga∣ther'd by Analogy, as many things in our Holy Religi∣on are; yea, the main part of what I have said is grounded on express Texts in the New Testament,

where these Sacred Mysteries are thus unfolded, explain'd and illustrated.

Lastly, Before I take my leave of this old Venerable Iewish Monument, the Tabernacle, I will set down the Travels and Removes of it, and the Ark. First, They were in the Wilderness forty Years; thence they re∣moved to Gilgal, and staid there about fourteen Years. Afterwards their Mansion-place was3 1.213 Shil••h a Country of Samaria, a City in the Tribe of Benjamin: hither they were brought in the seventh Year of Ioshua's Go∣vernment, and continued here till Samuel's time, which was in all about 240 Years, as from the Years of the Iudges may be computed. Hitherto the Tabernacle and Ark were together; now they are parted, for the Ark was taken by the Philistines and carried to Beth∣sh••mesh, and thence to Kirjathjearim, where it re∣main'd many Years; then it came to Mishphat, then to Gilgal, then to Nob, then to Gib••••••, and to the House of Obed Edom, where it staid but three months, and was fetch'd with great joy and triumph to Mount Sion, the City of David, 2 Sam. 6. 17. 1 Chron. 16. 1. where this Pious Prince erected a Tabernacle for it; which whether it was a new one, or the old one preserv'd at Shiloh, and fetch'd thence, I will not dispute. And at last the Ark after all its Travels was fix'd in the Holy of Holies in Solomon's Temple. And the Tabernacle it self (which was fitted for the foregoing State, their continual removing from place to place) was laid up (as some think) as a Sacred Monument in some part of the Temple; of which I am to speak next. And this I do (as when before I gave an account of the Ta∣b••rnacle) to correct some Mistakes about this mat∣ter.

The Temple was built answerable to the Tabernacle,

for the Front of it was toward the East, and the Holy of Holies was situate toward the West. Thence the East Door of the Temple is call'd Shagnar haithon, Ezek. 40. 15. the Gate of Access or Ingress, because it was the chief Gate whereby they enter'd into the Temple, or that directly led up to the main part of it. And perhaps from this situation of it, and their coming up to it with their Faces and Foreparts towards this East-end and Gate of it, the East is call'd Kedem and Kadim the fore-part, Ezek. 43. 17. The Temple be∣ing thus placed, they accordingly worship'd and bowed toward the West: tho afterwards some in imitation of the Idolatrous Gentiles, bowed toward the East, and turn'd their backs on the Holy of Holies, Ezek. 8. 16. The Temple as well as the Tabernacle, consisted of three divisions, viz. the Court, the holy Place, and the Holiest of all. I will briefly shew you what these seve∣ral Parts contained in them: for tho as to the main the Temple was built proportionable to the Tabernacle, yet it differ'd from it in several things. And for variety sake I will present the Temple to you differently from the Tabernacle, that is, I will begin first with the Holy of Holies, and so pass downward, whereas I went up∣ward before.

In this first part of the Temple was the Ark of the Covenant, wherein were deposited the Two Tables of Stone on which the Law was written. Some think the Temple fell short of the Tabernacle in this, that in the Ark of the Tabernacle were the Two Tables, and the P••t of Manna, and Aaron's Rod: But in the Ark of the Temple there was nothing save the two Tables of Stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, 1 King. 8. 9. Deut. 10. 5. It is implied in these words, say they, that there had been something else in the Ark hereto••ore, and that now it was missing, else it would have been barely said, that in the Ark were the two Tables of Stone, with∣out this addition there was nothing else, which intima••es

that other things were there before, but now are lost, viz. by the Ark's being carried from place to place so often. But all this is false arguing, and groundless surmise; and the true account is this, (which I partly assign'd before when I spoke of the Tabernacle, and on which I have enlarged in a1 1.214 former Discourse) that the Ark in that place of the Kings is taken strictly for the chief Apart∣ment or Division of the Ark, and so it is rightly said it had nothing in it but the two Tables: But in a larger Sense, i. e. as the Ark signifies the whole Body and Compass of the Ark, it contain'd those other things in it. In this part of the Temple were the Cherubims, which were placed at each end of the Ark with Wings spread abroad. But this is to be observed, that where∣as in the Tabernacle there were but two Cherubims, in the Temple there were four. Between their Wings were the Propitiatory, and the Oracle whence God gave Answers in difficult Cases; but this latter was much larger than that in the Tabernacle.

The second Part of the Temple was the Body of it, or the holy Place, or Sanctuary, or the outward House of the Lord. Here was the Veil, adorned with Cherubims, which separated the Holy of Holies from the Holy Place, but was much wider and longer than that of the Taber∣nacle. Here were the Shew-bread and Golden Candle∣sticks: the former of these in the Tabernacle was set on one Table only, but in the Temple it was set on t••n Ta∣bles, five being on one side, and five on the other. In the Tabernacle there was but one Golden Candlestick, with seven Branches; but instead of that in the Temple, there were ten Golden Candlesticks, five on one hand, and five on the other; for the Temple being greater, wanted more Light. The 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Altar of Incense

was of the same materials and make with that in the Tabernacle.

The third Part of the Temple was that which was called the Court. This part was not covered, but lay open to the Sky; but the Body of the Temple and the Oracle were covered. This East-end of the Tem∣ple was divided into four lesser Courts, whereas in the Tabern••cle there was but one Area or Court.

1. The Priests Court, which was next the Body of the Temple. In it was the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Brazen Altar of Burnt-Offerings, which were offer'd every Morning and Evening. This was a great deal longer, broader and wider than that in the Tabernacle, for it was 20 Cubits in l••ngth, 20 in breadth, and 10 in height. Observe that at first Altars were without Steps; but ••••••••wards this was dispensed with: And as Reli∣gion advanced, so did the Altars, and rose higher and higher, as is evid••nt here in this; tho some Abatements are ••ade in these Dim••nsions, by sa••ing, this Altar sh••uld not be measured by Sacred Cubits, but common ones, which are as short again as the others. In this Court were two Brass Pillars, call'd Iachin and Boaz, one on the right hand, and the other on the left; which are an addition to what was in the Tabernacle, for we read of no such thing there. Here also were ten Lavers of Brass, five on the right hand, and five on the left, whereas there was but one brazen Laver in the Ta∣bernacle. The Beasts for Sacrifice were washed here, being first wash'd in the Sheep-pool. Here was the Sea of Brass, standing on 12 Oxen of Brass: In this the Priests and Levites wash'd their hands and feet before they serv'd at the Altar. Into this Court none gene∣rally enter'd but the Priests and Levites.

2. The Peoples Court, i. e. the Court of the Israe∣lites, and all other Circumcised Worshippers. This is that which is call'd the Great Court, 2 Chron. 4. 9. Here they stood to pray, and to see the performance of

the Sacrifices. Here were several Porches for the Peo∣ple to repair to in rainy weather, and thence this Court is sometimes call'd the Porch: and it is particularly call'd Solomo••'s Porch, Acts 3. 11. & 5. 12. because he stood here when he dedicated the Temple. About the mid∣dle of this Court was the brazen Scaffold or Stage which Solomon erected, and where he stood and prayed, 2 Chron. 6. 13. The Gate of this Court is that which was call'd the beautiful Gate, as some think, Acts 3. 10. The King only went in at this Gate, Ezek. 44. 3. but the People went in by two Gates on the North and South, Ezek. 46. 9. This Court was call'd the Peo∣ples Court, because the Jewish People went no further than this Court, and worship'd here. But this Court frequently goes under the Name of the Temple in the New Testament, as in Matth. 21. 12. Acts 3. 1. and other places. Here Christ preached, and here he cast out the Buyers and Sellers.

3. The Womens Court, which was an Apartment di∣stinct from that of the Men. In imitation of which perhaps it is, that among the I••ws at this day the Men and Women do not worship together, but are confined to a place that looks into the Synagogue. So among the Turks, none but Males enter the Moschs. And in Russia the Women either stand at the Door of the Church, or are in some place shut up from the Men. In this Court stood the Treasury, from whence this Court is called the Treasury, John 8. 20. It was stiled in H••brew Corban, i. e. a Gift, because it contain'd the Gifts and Mony offer'd by the People towards the re∣pairing of the Temple, relieving the Poor, and the pro∣viding of Sacrifices. Here Christ saw the Widow casting in her Mite.

4. The Court of the Gentiles, or of the Proselytes of the Gate. Here, as some think, was a Market of Sheep and Oxen, Doves, &c. and here were the Shops and Tables of Mony-changers, for the supply of Oblations.

The others think (as hath been mention'd) that the Buyers and Sellers had intruded even into the Peoples Court. This outward Court of the Gentiles, or Uncir∣cumcised Proselytes, is called1 1.215 the House of Prayer to (or for) all Nations, because the Gentiles were admitted to pray in this part of the Temple. But they were not permitted to come into the Inner Court of the Temple: thence St. Paul is impeached for bringing Greeks into the Temple, Acts 21. 28. This Partition was divided from the other Court (where the Iews and Circumcised Proselytes were) by a little Stone-wall but three Cubits high, with this Inscription on Pillars, Let no Alien enter into the Holy Place. To this Wall the Apostle alludeth, saying, Christ hath broken down2 1.216 the middle Wall of Partition between us, i. e. between Jews and Gentiles, Ephes. ••. 14. This Court is sometimes call'd the Tem∣ple, for the Temple is taken either strictly for that part which was covered, into which the Priests only enter'd; or largely for all that space walled in, but not covered, where the People as well as the Priests were: and thus these four Courts may be called the Temple. This may suffice for an Account of those particular things which were contained in the Iewish Temple.

As for the Fabrick it self, I will only say this (which exalts it above all the Buildings in the World) that the Contriver of it was God himself; the Platform was from Heaven. For which reason the Form of it hath been imitated by Christians, who generally built their Churches after that Model. Thence we read, in the Writings of the Greek Fathers, and in the Antient Councils and Historians, of, 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which answer to the Court, the Holy Place, and the Holy of Holies in Solomon's Temple. Thus the Antient Christians emulated that

Divine Pattern, I may truly call it the Pattern in the Mount; for this stately Pile stood upon Mount Sion, a principal part of I••rusalem. Here God's Temple and the King's Palace were seated. Here it was that Abra∣ham of old offer'd his Son Isaac, for Mount Sion and Mount M••riah are the same, as3 1.217 Ioseph 〈◊〉〈◊〉; and so it was a fit place where those Solemn O••••erings and Sa∣crifices should b••, which were to represent and presigni∣••y the Mystical Isaac, the Blessed Messias, the Sacrifice offer'd for the Sins of the World. As for the Dimen∣sions of this Temple built by Solomon, (for that which was erected after the return from the Captivity, and was afterwards repair'd, and in a manner rebuilt by H••r••d seven Years before our Saviour's Birth, differ'd from this as to its Magnitude) it was just as big again as the Tabernacle, for the one was 60 Cubits long, 20 Cubits broad, and 30 Cubits high; but that was but 30 Cubits in length, 10 in breadth, and 15 in height. But when 'tis said in 1 Kings 6. 2. that the Temple was 30 Cubits high, it must be meant only of the space which reached from the Floor to the first Story; for when it is compared with the Tabernacle, it is consider'd without a Roof or any Superstructure, because the Ta∣bernacle was such. But if you take the whole height of the Temple, it was no less than 120 Cubits, as you read in 2 Chron. 3. 3. Thus then it is, from the bot∣tom to the first Roof were 30 Cubits, from thence to the second Roof 30 more, and from thence to the top 60 Cubits: So the height of the Temple from the Floor to the top of all, was 120 Cubits. Thus the Learned4 1.218 Iewish Antiquary reconciles those Texts in Kings and Chronicles which seem to oppose one another.

I might add, that as the Tabernacle, when 'twas fix'd in Shilo••, had Buildings about it for the Priests and

Levites to lodg in, so likewise it was contriv'd in the spot of Ground where the Temple was erected, there were Houses to receive those Sacred Officers of the Tem∣ple, and in them they lodg'd and resided all the time of their Ministry, as our Deans and Prebendaries Houses are round about their respective Cathedrals. And a∣bout the Temple there were divers Chambers, some of which were us'd as Storehoses to lay up the Tithes and Offerings, 1 Chron. 9. 26. 2. Chron. 31. 11. Others were Repositories for the Vessels and Utensils, and all things belonging to the Service of the Temple, Nehem. 1. 39. & 13. 5. And some of them were made use of as places of Re••ection, Ier. 35. 2. So much of this Magnificent Temple at Ierusalem, which was the Iews Cathedral (as the Synagogues were their Parish-Churches) where their Ceremonious Worship was perform'd with the greatest pomp and splendor.

Fourthly, The Sacraments appointed by the Ceremo∣nial Law are here to be taken notice of. They were Circumcision and the Passover: The former was in use before the Mosaick Dispensation, it being appointed as a Sign of the Covenant between God and Abraham. It was reestablished by God when he delivered the Ceremo∣nial Law to Moses; and it was to continue a Badg and Confirmation of the same Covenant, that the Posterity of Abraham, the Iews, might receive comfort thence. It was also to be a remarkable Token to difference the Iews from other Nations (tho other People afterwards borrow'd Circumcision from the Israelites, as the Idu∣maeans, the Egyptians, &c.) There were other Ends and Designs of this bloody Rite, which you will find enumerated under the Abrahamick Dispensation, and ther••••••e I will not repeat them here. The other Iewish Sacrament was the Passover; but because I may more properly speak of it among the other Feasts, I refer it thither, and accordingly proceed to the consideration of the set Times of Iewish Worship.

CHAP. VII.

The Jewish Feasts, Sabbaths, New Moon, Passover. The Parallel between the Paschal Lamb and our Saviour, shew'd in several Particulars. This mystical Way approved of. Christ celebrated not the Passover on the same Evening that the Jews did, but in the Even∣ing before. This represented in a Scheme. The Feast of Pentecost. The Feast of Taberna∣cles. The Feast of Trumpets. Of Expia∣tion. Other lesser Feasts, not commanded in the Law, but appointed by the Jewish Church. Fasts kept, tho not injoin'd by the Law. The difference of Clean and Unclean Animals. Why the latter were forbidden to be eaten. The chief Reason of the Prohibition was, to pre∣vent Idolatry. Two Objections answer'd. Vows proper to the Mosaick Dispensation. They were either Personal or Real. The Cherem.

IN the Fifth place I am to treat of the Solemn Times and Set Seasons of Worship appointed the Iews by the Mosaick Law. These by a general Name were call'd Feasts; but if you speak properly, some of them were Fasts. But because the word is sometimes taken by the Iews for a solemn Time of Religious Worship, whether it was accompanied with Rejoicing or Mourn∣ing, that term is applied to them all. The Design of these Festivals was to commemorate some great Blessing, to maintain mutual Love, Friendship and Communion, and to join together in the Service of God.

These Feasts are divided by the Iews into the greater and the lesser. The greater Feasts are these.

1. The Sabbaths. For tho this word be of a larger sig∣nification, and is applied to all Feasts and Solemn Times of Worship, yet it hath a restrained Sense, and is par∣ticularly applied to these certain Seasons, viz. the Sab∣baths of Days, and the Sabbaths of Years. The Sab∣baths of Days are the lesser and the greater: the lesser are every seventh Day, call'd the Sabbath by way of emi∣nence, in memory of God's resting or ceasing from the Works of the Creation. But it was commanded now with particular reference to the Iewish People, and to their resting from their Captivity and Bondage in Egypt. I say no more of it here, because I am to insist largely upon it when I come to treat of the Fourth Command∣ment. The greater Sabbath of Days was, when the Passover ••ell on the Sabbath-day, as it did that Year when Christ suffer'd, Iohn 19. 31. This was call'd the Great Sabbath by the Iews.

And as there were the Sabbaths of Days, so there were the Sabbaths of Years: These were two; first, Every Seventh Year was a Sabbath of Rest to the Land, Levit. ••5. 4. and then there was no plowing or sowing, nor making any the like provision, but what the Ground yielded that Year of it self was sufficient, and it was in common to all Persons to eat of it. It was God's Plea∣sure to deal thus with this People, to bring them to a sense of his Providence in the World, that he was able without their Care and Art to sustain them, that he was Lord of all things, and the Supreme Disposer of them. This was the reason why their Land enjoy'd its Sabbaths. Secondly, There was the Sabbath which was the end of seven times seven Years, that is, 49 Years, Levit. 25. 8. This was the greatest Sabbath of all, and was call'd the Iubilee. But whether it was kept in the close of that 49th Year, (as Scalig••r, Petavi••s, Calvisius think) or in the Year after, viz. the 50th Year (••s

those who follow1 1.219 Iosephus determine) I will not dis∣pute at present, having said something of it in another place. This we are certain of, that when the Year of Iubilee return'd, all Debts were to be cancell'd, and mortgaged Lands were to return to their Owners, and every Freeholder repossess'd what was alien'd from him, and all Prisoners and Debtors were set free, and Captives were released, and all Controversies and Suits about Lands, Estates, Possessions and Properties were ended. It is certain likewise, that as on every seventh Year, so in every Year of Iubilee the Iews plough'd not their Ground, but fed upon what came up of it self; which may be attributed to the singular Nature of the Soil, and to God's particular Blessing on that People.

2. Every New Moon, or the first Day of every Month, was another Festival among the Iews. It is disputed whether they kept the Day of the Moon's c••n∣junction with the Sun, or of its appearance, which is two or three days after. But it is most probable that they observ'd the former, because it is most properly the New Moon; and as for the latter, it was uncertain, be∣cause the Clouds might hinder it several Days or Nights from appearing, and so the Festival would be uncertain, which we can't well imagine. It is true, there is no express Institution that we read of for the observing this Feast: but it may be gather'd from many places, (1 Sam. 20. 5, 18. 1 Chron. 23. 31. Prov. 7. 20. Isa. 1. 13. & 66. 23.) that they kept this day in a festival manner. On these Hebrew Calends, as on the Sa••••ath, People repair'd to the Prophets for Ins••••uction, 2 Kings 4. 23. and it was not lawful to buy or sell, Amos 8. 4. or follow any other Works of their ordinary Calling.

3. The Pesac••, or the Feast of the Pass••ver, kept in the first Month of the Year, according to the Eccle∣siastick Order of the Months, (for we must know that

the Iews reckon'd their Months two ways, viz. either according to the Political or the Ecclesiastical Year.) According to the Political or Civil Year (which was for Contracts and Business) they began the Year with the Month Tisri or September, and ended it with Elul or August. But according to the Sacred and Ecclesiastical Account (which they observ'd in keeping their Feasts) they began the Year with the Month Abib, Exod. 13. 4. call'd also Nisan, Nehem. 2. 1. which answers to our March, and concluded with Adar or February. This Account was not in use till Moses's Time, and was insti∣tuted in memory of their coming out of Egypt, which was in the Month Nisan or Ab••b. For it had these two Names; it was called Nisan from Nus, fugit, from the Israelites flying 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Egypt (so this is the Iewish He∣gira); it was call'd Abib, because that word signifieth a green Ear of Corn, denoting that that was the time when Corn began to ripen. The Feast of the Passover began in this first Month according to the Ecclesiastical Computation, nay indeed according to Divine Institu∣tion; for the Month wherein the Israelites were deli∣vered, being the seventh in Civil Account, was for ever after call'd the first Month, by God's Command, Exod. 12. 2. This solemn Feast began on the 15th of this Month, and lasted till the 21st, i. e. seven Days. On the Evening before this Feast, viz. on the 14th Day, the Paschal Lamb was killed and eaten; and on the se∣ven following Days the Paschal Sacrifices were offered. This was also call'd the Feast of Vnleavened Bread, be∣cause this sort of Bread was used at that time, and no other. Therefore two or three days together before the Passover, they used to light up Candles, and to look in∣to every hole and corner about their Houses, to see if any old leaven'd Bread was scatter'd there. This Feast of the Passover was the greatest of all the Feasts which the Iews observ'd; and the first and last days were the great∣est days of all. This extraordinary F••ast was c••l••brated

in remembrance of the Angel's passing 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and sparing the Israelites First-born in Egypt, and in commemora∣tion of God's wonderful bringing them out of that place. But this was not the only reason of the institut∣ing this Feast; there was a higher Design, and it was no other than this, that the Paschal Lamb should be a Type of the Lamb of God, who was to be slain, and to take away the Sins of the World. As I have shew'd before how the Jewish Sacrifices, and how several of those things which appertained to the Tabernacle prefigured Christ▪ so here I will let you see how the Jewish Passover did the same.

I will take then those words of the Apostle for the Ground-work of what I shall say on this Subject, Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us, 1 Cor. 5. 7. This word Passover is taken in several senses, viz. for the thing it self represented, the Angel's passing over the Houses of the Israelites, and doing no harm. This is the first and original meaning of that term. But it is taken likewise for the Israelites representation of that Act of the Angel's Transition, Exod. 12. 11. for the Feast which was appointed to be kept in remembrance of that Mercy; for the Sacrifices offer'd at that Solem∣nity, Deut. 16. 4. Lastly, For the Lamb which was then offered and eaten, 2 Chr••••. 35. 11. And so it is taken here, Christ our Passover, i. e. our Paschal Lamb, is kill'd and sacrificed for us: And all the Rites and Observances of the Jews about their Passover, were but Re••resentations of the true Christian Passover.1 1.220 S. Chry∣sostom expresses it thus briefly, speaking of the Paschal L••m••,

It prefigured something to come; that Lamb was a Type of another, viz. the Spiritual Lamb: that was but the Shadow, this is the Truth.

I will then undertake to shew the Analogy and Resemblance

between the one and the other. It is easy for a quick Fancy and a nimble Invention to make more Resem∣blances than indeed there are: but without doubt these two agree in very many things▪ insomuch that several Writers have composed entire Tract••••••s about it. I shall only mention those things which every sober Mind may at the very first view take notice of.

In the 12th Chapter of Ex••dus, where you read of the first Institution of the Iewish Pass••ver, and where you have a particular Account of all Rites and Obser∣vances belonging to it, first it is said, They sha•••• tak•• to them every Man a Lamb, ver. 3. A Lamb then was made choice o•• for the Pass••ver: and by that Christ I••∣••us was pre••igured; for first he is called by that Name in Scripture, Iohn 1. 29, 36. Rev. 5. 6. and ten times at lea•••• this Name is given to Christ in this Book. And then, as to his Q••alities and Virtues, he is a Lamb: he was Innocent, M••••k, Patient, and Obedient; there∣fore the Evangelical Prophet saith, He is brought ••s a Lamb to the slaugh••er, and as a Sheep before her 〈…〉〈…〉 is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth, Isa. 53. 7. Thus the Person of Christ is fitly represented under the Type of a Lamb. But every Lamb would not serve for the Passover; the Paschal Lamb was to have these three Conditions and Qualifications▪

First, It was to be without blemish, ver. 5. This ••••g∣nally points ••o••th the Messias, who was the only Person o•• all mankind that was sinless. For this Lamb of God who was to take away other mens 〈◊〉〈◊〉, was not to have any himself. It was necessary that he should be a Lamb without blemish and without spot, (as he is call'd 1 Pet. 19.) who was to present to himself a Church not having spot or wrinkle, Ephes. 5. 27. This was he (and there was none ever like him) who ••id no ••in, neither was guile found in his mouth, 1 Pet. 2. 22. Secondly, The Paschal Lamb was to be a Male, ver. 5. Serviu•• on that place of Virgil,

1 1.221—Casâ jungebant foed••r•• porcâ,

hath this Note, that the Gentiles thought the S••••-Sacri∣fices were most prevalent and acceptable. Whence some conjecture that here is a Male-Sacrifice enjoined in op∣position to the custom of the Gentiles; for it is well known that many things were commanded the Iews, because they were contrary to the practice of the Hea∣then People round about them. And there might be some regard to this here, tho I cannot say with a2 1.222 late Writer, that all the Circumstances here relating to the Passover, were inj••ined in opp••sition to the practice of the superstitious and idolatrous Gentiles. Others think a Male was to represent Christ, who was Man as well as God. So that this qualification was fulfilled (as the Learned Bochart observes) in the very strictness of the Letter. And this excellent Writer adds, that it was a Male, because the Sacrifice of this kind was reputed more worthy and excellent than the Female Offerings, Mal. 1. 14. But the plainest and most obvious Reason why the Paschal Lamb was a Male, is, because it is the stronger and more vigorous, and so it was fittest to represent him who is the Christians Strength.3 1.223 I can do all things through Christ who strengthn••t•• me, saith the Apostle. God hath4 1.224 laid help on one that is mighty, one that 〈◊〉〈◊〉5 1.225 able to save to the uttermost them that com•• to God by him, one who was indued with sufficient Power to accomplish the great Work he undertook▪ And as the Paschal Lamb was to be a Male; so on the very same account the third Qualification of it was, that it must be of the first Year, ver. 5. for then it was sup∣posed

to arrive to its vigour. Such a Lamb was Christ Iesus, he was crucified when he was in the strength of his Years, in the full vigour of his Age, when he was young and lively. Thus you see there is a perfect re∣semblance in all these Particulars between the Paschal Lamb and the Lamb of God, even our Lord Iesus Christ.

And I may add this too, that the Paschal Lamb was to be taken out of their own Folds, ver. 3. and Deut. 16. 2. So was our Redeemer one of the Flock, taken out of the Fold of Mankind, taken from his Brethren, Deut. 18. 15. Heb. 2. 17. He was one of us, a true Man, of our Flesh, and of our Bone. And, which was yet nearer to the matter, he was taken out of the Fold of the Iews, and he was of the Seed of David. In the next place the Lamb was to be kill'd, and in this also it is a manifest Type of Christ. That without shed∣ding of Blood there should be no remission, was the ap∣pointment of Eternal Wisdom, that which Angels ad∣mire, and Men must ever stand amazed at. Therefore the Messias was to die for us, to expiate our Sins by his Blood, for his Blood cleanseth us from all Sin, 1 John 1. 7. But before the Lamb was kill'd, it was to be kept in their Houses four days, ver. 3. and ver. 6. You will find, upon perusing the History of the Gospel, that Christ was crucified the 4th day after his last coming in∣to Ierusalem, the Iews own Home: he was, as it were, all that time kept up before he was slain. Or it may be * 1.226 Bochart's Notion may be acceptable, who observes that this Passage was thus fulfill'd, Christ was taken from his Mother's House (the Fold where he was brought up) at 30 Years of Age, and suffer'd Death the 4th Year after that. If according to the Prophe∣tick Stile we take a Day for a Year, this is exactly

accomplish'd. But this Judicious Author favours rather the other Interpretation, viz. Christ suffering on the fourth day after his coming to Ierusalem; tho I conceive this Learned Man is mistaken in his Reckoning of it, for tho our Saviour rode into Ierusalem on the 10th day of the Month, yet he return'd to Bethany (whence he came) at the Evening, Mat. 21. 17. and came back to Ierusa∣lem the next day, Mat. 21. 18. and consequently he was not crucified on the 14th day (as this Author deter∣mines) but on the 15th.

But let us pass to the next Circumstance of Time, and that is, that they were to kill the Lamb in the Evening, at the going down of the Sun, ver. 6. & Deut. 16. 6. Which plainly points at the Time of Christ's Passion and Death, viz. towards the shutting in of the day, at the declining of the Sun. Then did this Sun of Righteous∣ness leave this World. For tho some apply it to the Evening of the Iewish Oeconomy and Government, and others to the Evening of the World, yet I rather pitch up∣on the most easie and unexceptionable meaning, i. e. the Evening of the Day: then our Christian Passover was sacrificed for us. He was slain in the Evening, or, as 'tis said here of the Paschal Lamb, between the two Eve∣nings, i. e. (as I have shew'd before) between the first declining of the Sun, and its going down, or setting, which was about the Ninth hour, or Three a clock in the Afternoon. Then the Lamb which was slain from the foundation of the World, viz. as to the Decree of God, and as to the virtue and efficacy of his Death (for those that were before Christ's coming, were as effectually saved by him as those that lived at or after it) was really and actu∣ally slain in his body on the Cross. And thus He and the Paschal Lamb were slain at the same hour of the day, Mat. 27. 45, 46.

The next thing observable is the Effusion and Sprink∣ling of the Blood of the Lamb, ver. 7, & 13. The Blood was to be to them for a Token upon the houses where

they were, that when the Angel saw the Blood he should pass over them, and the plague should not be upon them to destroy them. Here is the Benefit which came to the Is∣raelites by the Passover, they were kept safe and secure from the Destroying Angel, when Death and Destructi∣on seiz'd upon the Egyptians. Can any thing more evi∣dently set forth the Design of Iesus the Messias, who was to come and shed his Blood for us, that thereby we might be freed from the Vengeance of God, and escape the stroak of the Destroyer, and be rescued from Death and Eternal Misery? Wherefore a1 1.227 Pious Father saith rightly,

The Lamb which of old was slain by the Is∣raelites was a Type of the True Lamb Christ our Lord, who was sacrificed for us: for as there the Blood sprinkled on the posts saved those that sprinkled it, so the Blood of the True Lamb Christ our God delivers us from the Curse of the Enemy and from Eternal Death.

Indeed this is the grand and principal thing signified by the Paschal Lamb, viz. our Redemption by the Blood of Jesus Christ. And the Sprinkling of this Blood is twice expresly mention'd as absolutely necessary for this purpose, Heb. 12. 24. 1 Pet. 1. 1. And the hearts of Believers are said to be sprinkled from an evil conscience, Heb. 10. 22. that is, purged and cleans'd from the defilements of Sin by sprinkling of the Blood of this Lamb. Besides, the sprinkling and striking of the Blood on the posts, denotes unto us the particular apply∣ing of the Blood of Jesus and the virtue of his Passion to our selves by a lively Faith. Which that Religious and Pious2 1.228 Critick, whom I have before quoted, expresses thus,

The Blood of Christ (saith he) is sprinkled on the posts of our hearts, when with a firm Faith we imbrace the Doctrine of the Cross, being assured that the Son of

God poured out his Blood for us, so that every one of us may say with the Apostle, This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Iesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.

Moreover, at the Celebration of the Passover they were to strike the blood of the slain Lamb on the two side posts of the door within and without, on purpose that they might see it, and take special notice of it (as the Angel did before) and that they might call that Wonderful Mercy to remem∣brance. This shall be to you for a Memorial, and ye shall keep it a Feast to the Lord for ever, ver. 14. This solemn Feast was instituted on purpose to remind them of their Deliverance: and so the Lords Supper, which suc∣ceeds in its room, is a Commem••ration of our Deliverance by Christ. Do this in Remembrance of me, saith he; ob∣serve this Holy Feast, to help you to call to mind my Death, and consequently the Infinite Benefits and Advan∣tages which you receive by it.

In the next place, we come to speak of the Eating of the Paschal Lamb, and the several Circumstances that were observable in it: and let us see how they agree with that which we are speaking of. First, I say, it was to be Eaten, and so was the Lamb of God. He himself uses this stile and language, he calls unto us saying, Take, eat, this is my Body, Mat. 26. 26. And he assures us that except we eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood, we have no life in u••. Whose ••ateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood, hath eternal life: for my Flesh is meat indeed, and my Blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood dwelle••h in me, and I in him. Joh. 6. 53, &c. This I think is sufficient to prove the Parallel between Christ and the Paschal Lamb, as to eating them. Next, we are to observe that this Lamb which was to be eaten, was to be roasted with fire, ver. 8. And therein also is prefigured what be••el the Lamb of God. The Holy Ghost in Scripture is pleased to compare God's Wrath to Fire, Deut. 32. 24. Jer. 4. 4.

Jer. 15. 14. Jer. 21. 12. Lam. 1. 13. Lam. 2. 4. and in many other places. Therefore Roasting in the fire fit∣ly expresseth the Extremity of Christs Sufferings under the Flames of God's Anger. He was as it were Scorched and Burnt, he underwent the Displeasure of God, who is a Consuming Fire, Deut. 4. 24. Heb. 12. 29. This is thus expressed in other terms by Isaiah, He was wo••n∣ded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, Isa. 53. 5. He was oppressed and he was afflicted, ver. 7. It pleased the Lord to bruise him, and to put him to grief, ver. 10. Some Commentators take no notice of this Parallel, but certainly it is not to be omitted, nay it is of very great moment: and the manner of speech very fitly and significantly expresses the Heat, the Height of God's wrath kindled against Sinners. We see this Torre∣faction is adapted to the usual language of Scripture, where the Extremity of the Divine Anger against the wicked is set forth by fire, with which (saith the Learned and Pious3 1.229 Bochart) it behoved Christ to be as it were scorched and burnt, who had made himself a Surety for Sinners, that he might undergo the Punishment which they deserved. Nay, besides the Mystical signification, there is a kind of literal fulfilling of the Expression here used, if we may credit an antient and pious4 1.230 Father, who ac∣quaints us that the Roasted Lamb at the Passover was spit∣ted in such a manner that it resembled the figure of a Cross, and he particularly tells us how. If we consider that this Antient Writer of the Church was born and bred in Pa∣lestine, and was skill'd in the Iewish (as well as Pagan) Rites and Customs; and likewise if we remember that he spoke these words in a Conference with a knowing Iew, who could and would have contradicted him if he had deliver'd any thing concerning the Iewish practices which was not true, we cannot but look upon this as a

very considerable Testimony, and we must conclude that he would not have dared to apply this particular passage of the Roasting of the Lamb to our blessed Savi••ur; he would not have compar'd this Cross to the Spit, unless there had been ground for it.

The next thing observable is, that the whole Lamb was to be eaten, ver. 10. Ye shall let nothing of it remain's which may import how Intire and Compleat the spiritu∣al eating of the Lamb of God should be. Whole Christ, or none, must be receiv'd by Faith. Which the forecited Author thus piously descants upon.

It is not sufficient to eat Christ in part, as if we were desirous to enjoy his Glory, but not to be partakers of his Sufferings, or as if we would have him for our Redeemer, not for our Lawgiver and Master: as if not attributing enough to the Merits of Christ, we would partly place our confident hope of Salvation in our own Works, or in the Mediation and Intercession of others.

And further, when it is said that the Lamb must not remain till mor∣ning, it doth strangely and marvelously agree with what the Evangelists relate, that Christ was taken down from the Cross on a sudden, contrary to the Custom in such cases, and partly because of the Sabbath on the ensuing day, that thereby the Parallel between our Saviour and the Iewish Passover might be more manifest. It is said further ver. 46. and Num. 9. 12. Neither shall ye break a bone thereof. That Christ Iesus, who suffer'd on the Cross, was presignifi'd and foretold by this, is plain from what is recorded by St. Iohn, who tells us that Divine Providence so order'd it, that tho the Souldiers broke the Legs of those that were crucified with Christ, yet they br••ke not his Legs, Joh. 19. 33. A most remarkable completion of the Type, and that by the wonderful dis∣posal of Heaven. Whereupon the Evangelist saith, This was done, that the Scripture might be fulfill'd, A B••n•• of him shall not be broken, ver. 36. Which plainly refers to this passage concerning the Paschal Lamb of the Iews,

that they were commanded not to break any bone of it. And if, according to St. Iohn, that particular injunction concerning the Lamb be applicable to Christ, and was fulfill'd in him, there is just ground so believe that the other passages and circumstances relating to that Lamb, are to be apply'd to Christ the Lamb of God, and are ac∣complish'd in him. This no man of composed thoughts can deny.

And whereas the Iews were to eat their Paschal Lamb with Vnleavened Bread, ver. 8, & 20. the Apostle hath told us the meaning of that; for after he had said, Christ our Passover i•• sacrificed for us, he immediately adds, Let us therefore keep the Feast, not with old Leaven, neither with the Leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the Vnleavened Bread of sincerity and truth. The corrupt Ferment of Sin, especially of Hypocrisie and Dissimulation, (which our Saviour also calls Leaven, Luks 12. 1.) fu∣teth not with the Bread of Life which we are to eat.

Yea, we must purge out all sin and wickedness, which the same Inspired Author in the same place again calls the Old Leaven, ver. 7. If we would keep the Christi∣an Passover aright, we must abandon every known Vice, which is fitly compared to Leaven, because it spreadeth it self, and soon corrupteth the Soul: a little Leaven leaveneth the whole lump, ver. 6. & Gal. 5. 9. But from what we read in Deut. 16. 3. we may gather that something besides this is shadowed out: there they are bid to eat all the time of the Passover Vnleavened Bread, even the Bread of affliction, because they came forth out of the Land of Egypt in haste. Vnleavened Bread then is the Bread of affliction; but why is it call'd so? I conceive it hath this name, because it is such Bread as the Poor and Afflicted by reason of pressing hunger eat, not staying till it be leavened: This sort of Bread they were to eat. And so we are taught here in what manner we are to eat the Christian Passover, viz. with the Bread of affliction: we must not pamper our carnal part, we must not make pro∣vision

for the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof; we must, ac∣cording to the Apostles Example, keep under our bodies, and bring them into subjection to our better part.

And this was partly signified by the eating of the Pas∣chal Lamb with bitter herbs, ver. 8. The spiritual mea∣ning whereof is, that we should not indulge our selves in the pleasures of Sin, that we should celebrate our Evan∣gelical Passover with godly Contrition and Sorrow, with hearty Remorse and Repentance, and that with the Peni∣tent Apostle, we should weep bitterly for our Sins. The Crucified Iesus is best entertain'd with a broken Heart.

And moreover, the posture and demeanour which the Israelites were to observe in their celebrating the Passover, viz. with their loins girded, and with sh••••s on their feet, and staves in their hands, ver. 11. which exprest their readiness to leave Egypt, and to depart out of it at the first warning, represent unto us our duty, which is to be prepar'd to quit our sins, which make us worse than E∣gyptian Bondslaves. Christ being sacrificed and ascen∣ded, we are to fit our selves to follow him, we must gird up the loins of our minds, we must have our feet sh•••• with the Evangelical preparation; we must be constantly in the posture of Pilgrims, whose thoughts are on leaving the place where they are: and we must be willing and ready to follow our Blessed Saviour which way soever he calls us.

This is to be remarked likewise, that no Vncircumcised person was to eat of the Passover, no F••reigner or Stran∣ger, ver. 43, 44. Which acquainteth us that none but those who are admitted into Christ's Church, and are True and Proper Members of it, can partake of the Be∣nefits which accrue by the death of our Lord; and also, that Strangers and Aliens from the Covenant of Grace, and those that are Uncircumcis'd in heart, receive no real Advantage by coming to the Lord's Supper: they par∣take only of the outward Elements, but are excluded from sharing in the Inward Grace and Blessing which

are represented by those External Signs.

Thus you see the Parallel between the Iewish and Chri∣stian Passover. The Paschal Lamb was a Male, and without Blemish, and of the First Year: It was taken out of their own Fold, and kill'd in the Evening, and the Door-posts were sprinkled with the Blood: It was roas∣ted, and then eaten whole, not a bone of it was to be broken, and nothing of it was to remain. It was eaten with Unleavened bread, and bitter herbs, with loins girt, and in haste: it was eaten not by Strangers and Uncir∣cumcised persons: and in every one of these particulars it was Typical and Representative. For tho it is true, there was this general Reason why these several Observances concerning the Paschal Lamb were enjoyn'd, namely be∣cause of their direct opposition to the Heathen Cerem••∣nies then in practice (as you shall hear afterwards) yet there was a more particular reason and distinct ground of the prescribing of these several Rites, viz. because they in some manner were Types and Significations of what our Lord Christ was to do or suffer, and of what is required of us in solemnizing the Gospel-Passover. If any man shall despise these things, and imagine them little, and not worthy of the Spirit of God, he may correct his prophane mistake by looking into the Epistles of St. Paul, especially that to the Hebrews, where he will find that the Apostle takes notice of such passages as these which relate to the Iewish Observances, and by the direction of the Divine and Infallible Spirit applies them to our Lord, and his Blessed Undertakings, and the main things of the Gospel-Dispensation. Let none then be so presumptuous and imp••ous as to say that these are Little and Contemptible, seeing they are such as the Holy Spi∣rit was pleased to dictate. Nay, I might add with great reason and truth that this Mystical way of delivering the most weighty matters was heretofore used and approved of by all the Antient Sages and Men of Wisdom, espe∣cially by the Egyptians, whose Learning chiefly consisted

in Hieroglyphicks. And therefore when we see that some men who have a great esteem of the Egyptian Learning, and admire it at a very high rate, do yet slight and vilifie those Mysterious Representations of the greatest and most important Truths which the Old Testament presents us with, we cannot but observe their wicked perversness, whilst they disregard and even ridicule that very way of communicating Truth in the Holy and Inspired Scrip∣tures which they magnifie and extol in Prophane Wri∣ters.

But I have not finished this Parallel yet. To make it every way compleat, Christ our Passover chose to be sa∣crificed on the very day that the Iews eat their Paschal Lamb. It is remarkable that Christ, who came to abo∣lish the Typical and Ceremonious Service of the Iews, yet just before his leaving the World submitted to this Mosaical Observance, and kept it with his Disciples, which certainly he would never have done if it had not been to signifie this very thing which I am treating of, viz. that He was the True and Real Paschal Lamb, and that before he died he designed to let them know that there was an exact Resemblance and Agreement between one and the other, and more especially as to the Times. This hath been partly proved already; I will now give farther evidence of it. It is a mighty Controversy among some Writers, whether Christ kept the Passover on the same day the Iews did, or the day before? Some are of the opinion that the Lamb according to the Law was to be killed on that night Christ kept his Passover, but was to be eaten the next Evening. Therefore they say Christ eat not the Paschal Lamb, but only celebrated the Passover with Unleavened Bread and Bitter Herbs. But this is only said, and not proved. On the contrary, we know that the Paschal Lamb was to be kill'd and eaten in the same night, Exod 12. 8. Dent. 16. 4. Yea, all of it was to be eaten that very night, nothing was to re∣main till the morning. Next then, it is to be demanded

whether Christ eat the Passover on the same night with the Iews? I answer, he did not keep the Passover on the same night that the Iews did, but on the night be∣fore i. e. on the Evening of the day before. Not that Christ anticipated the time of celebrating the Passover according to the Law (as the Greek Church holds) but he kept the true time, he celebrated it according to Moses's Law, i. e. on the 14th day of the first Month (which answer'd to our March) after Evening, Levit. 23. 5 Mat. 26. 17, &c. But the Jews (contrary to the Law) eat the Passover on the Evening of the day following, being the 15th day. This they did accord∣ing to a Custom among them which had obtain'd for a good while. I will at present offer only one Text, as a clear proof of this their practice: In Iohn 18. 28. 'tis said of the jews, that they went not into the Iudg∣ment Hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Passover. Thence it appears that they had not at that time (viz. on Friday morning) eaten the Pass∣over, which Christ and his Apostles had done; there∣fore Christ kept the Passover a Night sooner then the Iews did: they eat not theirs till the Evening after Christ was crucified, i. e. on Friday Night or Evening. This following Scheme will represent it to you more clearly; which also will be serviceable to clear some other passa∣ges in the Evangelical History, which I find are mista∣ken by some Persons.

On the 10th Day of the Month 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (which an∣swers to our March) being the 1st Day of the week accord∣ing to the Jews, which answers to Our Sunday, or Lord's Day Christ Came from Bethany, and en••••ed in∣to Ierusalem in triumph, Mat. 21. 1▪ &c. and return'd to Bethany in the Evening, Mat. 21. 17.

On the 11th Day of the Month 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (which an∣swers to our March) being the 2d Day of the week accord∣ing to the Jews, which answers to Monday Christ Cursed the Figree as he return'd from Bethany, Mat. 21. 18, &c.

On the 12th Day of the Month 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (which an∣swers to our March) being the 3rd Day of the week accord∣ing to the Jews, which answers to Tuesday Christ Foretold the destruction of Ieru∣salem, Mat. 24. 1.

On the 13th Day of the Month 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (which an∣swers to our March) being the 4th Day of the week accord∣ing to the Jews, which answers to Wednesday Christ Was sold by Iudas, Mat. 26. 14.

On the 14th Day of the Month 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (which an∣swers to our March) being the 5th Day of the week accord∣ing to the Jews, which answers to Thursday, the day of the Preparat. to the Passover Feast according to the Law. Christ In the evening eat the Paschal Lamb with his Disciples; instituted the Lord's Supper Met. 26. 20. After∣wards was appreheaded and arraign'd, Mat 26. 57. Joh. 18. 13.

On the 15th Day of the Month 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (which an∣swers to our March) being the 6th Day of the week accord∣ing to the Jews, which answers to Friday, the day of Preparation by the Jews custom. Christ Was arraign'd again, & condemn'd, crucified and buried, Mat. 27. In the Evening of this day the Jews eat the Passover, Ioh. 18. 28.

On the 16th Day of the Month 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (which an∣swers to our March) being the 7th (or Sabbath) Day of the week accord∣ing to the Jews, which answers to Saturday, or Jews Sabbath, on which they observ'd the Passover Feast. Christ Lay in the Grave all this day, Mat. 27. 62, &c.

On the 17th Day of the Month 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (which an∣swers to our March) being the 1st Day of the week accord∣ing to the Jews, which answers to Sunday, or Id's D. Christ Rose from the Dead very early, Mat. 28. 1.

Some Writers, because the Jews day of 24 Hours was reckoned from Sun set to Sun-set, take the Even∣ing of the 14th day of the Month to be the beginning of the next day, the 15th; for if the day commenc'd from the Evening, then the Evening of the 14th day belong'd to the next ensuing Day. But this is to be said, that tho 'tis true the Jewish Feasts took their be∣ginning in the Evening, and the natural Day was count∣ed from Evening to Evening, yet the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Day of 12 Hours began with Sun-rising, and ended at Sun-set▪ and the sormer part of the insuing Night was added to the account; and consequently the Evening of the 14th day was reckon'd as part of that Day. However, if you should say that the Evening of the 14th day belonged to the 15th which followed, you may make allowance for that in the Scheme, and adjust the foremention'd time by a small alteration: but still it holds true, that the Passover was not killed and eaten by Christ and his A∣postles, on the same day that the Jews kill'd and eat their Passover, as appeareth from the place before al∣ledged. And this is very remarkable, for the Jews putting off their Passover a day longer, contrary to their own Law, was not without the disposal of the All-wise God, that hereby the Paschal Lamb, and he that was represented by it, might be slain on the same day. Which shews the Agreement and Resemblance between Christ and the Iewish Passover, which was the thing I here in∣tended.

4. The Feast of Weeks, or the Feast of Pentecost (for it was known by both those Names) was another of those greater Feasts observ'd by the Jews. It was call'd the Feast of Weeks, because it was kept at the and of seven Weeks, i. e. 49 Days, Levit. 23. 15, 16. and it had the Greek name of Pentecost, because the first day of it was the 50th day after the first day of the Passover, as Whitsunday is 50 days after Easter. This

Feast (it is probable) is meant by the1 1.231 second Sab∣bath after the first, Luke 6. 1. for the day of Pentecost falling then on a Sabbath, is call'd the second Sabbath after the first, or the second Prime or chief Sabbath, because the Passover before being on a Sabbath Day, was the first Prime or chief Sabbath. So then in respect of that, this is call'd the second chief Sabbath, as the Feast of Tabernacles (which come afterwards) may be call'd the third chief Sabbath. Thus Grotius and Hammond; but Scaliger and Lightfoot refer it to the Feast of Vn∣leaven'd Bread, and make it the first Sabbath after the second day of the Passover. The Feast of Pentecost be∣gan on the sixth day of the Month Sivan, which an∣swers to our May: and the Harvest began at this time. Wherefore it is call'd the Feast of Harvest, and the Feast of First-fruits of what was sown in the Field, Exod. 23. 16. Then the first-fruits of the Corn were offer'd to God. So I may call it the Iewish Lammass, Sax. Lafmasse i. e. Loas-Masse or Bread-Masse, so call'd heretofore as a Feast of Thanksgiving to God for the First-fruits of the Corn. But when the Feast of Pente∣cost is called the Feast of Harvest, we must under∣stand this aright, (and I mention it the rather, because some Writers have mistaken here, and represented the Matter amiss) we must know then that there were two Harvests among the Jews, but not in the same order that they are with us, for their Barley-harvest began first, viz. at the Passover, and their Wheat-harvest was seven weeks after that. It is of this latter that the fore∣said Text in Exodus is meant. This Feast was of seven days continuance, but the first and last days were most solemnly kept: it was instituted in memory of the Law

given on Mount Sinai fifty days after the Passover, Lev. 23. 15, &c.

5. There was the Feast of Tabernacles, which began on the 15th day of the 7th Month, or September, ac∣cording to the computation of the Sacred Year, which commenced from March, Levit. 23. 34, &c. It con∣tinued eight days, in the first seven of which they dwelt in Tabernacles or Booths, made of the Boughs of these Trees especially, Willow, Palm, Mirtle. Whatever weather happen'd, they remain'd in these Tabernacles so many days together. They used at this time to hold in their hands Branches of Trees, which they call'd Hosan∣nas, because when they had them in their hands, it was their custom to cry Hasanna, Save now. The first and last days were the chiefest, as it was in all their Feasts. On the last day they fetch'd Water out of the River Siloah, and brought it to the Temple, which they de∣livered to the Priest, who poured it with Wine upon the Altar, the People singing that in Isa. 12. 3. Hence our Saviour took occasion on this last day of the Feast to cry, saying, If any Man thirst, let him come unto me and drink, &c. Iohn 7. 37, 38. This Anniversary Feast was kept in remembrance of the 40 Years sojourn∣ing in the Wilderness, all which time they dwelt in Ta∣bernacles.

These are they which the Jews call Shalosh regalim, the great Feasts: but more especially they call the three last so, which you find mentioned together in Exod. 23. 14, 15. Three times in the Year shalt thou keep a Feast unto me: thou shalt keep the Feast of Vn∣leavened Bread, (i. e. the Feast of the Passover) and the Feast of Ingathering, which is in the end of the Year, (i. e. the Feast of Tabernacles): these three times in the Year shall all thy Males appear before the Lord, i. e. they were to go from their own Habitations up to Shiloh, and af∣terwards

to Ierusalem on these three principal Feasts. But the other lesser Feasts (which they call'd1 1.232 Good Days) were kept in the Place and Cities where they lived. Of these I am to speak next.

The lesser Feasts are these two: 1.2 1.233 The Feast of Trumpets, or New-years Day; for they made a solemn promulgation of the New Year, by sounding of Trum∣pets at that time more than at another. As they kept the first day of every Month▪ (of which we spoke be∣fore) so likewise of every Year; i. e. they celebrated the first day of the Month Tisri, or September, because it was the first day of the Year, according to the AEra that they computed their Civil Years by. There are some that think the Feast of Trumpets was in remem∣brance of the Trumpets on Mount Sinai when the Law▪ was given, Exod. 19. 16, 19. 2. The3 1.234 Feast of Ex∣piation: for in a general way it may be call'd a Feast; and so it is reckon'd among the Feasts, Levit. 23. 2. but not strictly and properly, because it was not a day of rejoycing, which is essential to a Feast, but was spent wholly in Repentance, Humiliation, and Mourn∣ing. Yet it is call'd a Feast, because it was a day of Resting; on this day they were to do no manner of work, Lev. 23. 31. which is not enjoyn'd concerning any other Feast but the Grand Sabbath, or Weekly Feast (on other Feast-days they were forbid only to do servile Work, Levit. 23. 21, 36.) and so on that account this day may be stiled a Festival. But otherwise it ought to be call'd the F••st of Expiation, for it was a great Fast, nay it was the only Fast-day that was injoyn'd the Jews by Moses's Law, tho others were observ'd by their

own free choice. It was kept on the 10th day of the 7th Month (Tisri) on which the High Priest Solemnly enterd (as hath been shew'd before) into the Holy of Holies, to expiate for his own and the peoples Sins committed the whole Year before. This Fast is meant in Acts 27. 9. and thence it is gather'd, that sailing was then dangerous, that season of the Year being usual∣ly boistrous and tempestuous. Concerning the Modern Jews, Buxtorf tells us, that on this day every Man Kill'd a Cock (and a white Cock it was, and of no other colour) and every Woman Kill'd a Hen; and this they thought was expiatory, and satisfy'd for their former Faults, and took away their past Sins.

Besides the Festivals and solemn Days commanded in the Mosaick Law, there were others appointed by the Iewish Church, some of which are recorded in the Old Testament, and on that account belong to the Iewish Dispensation. These were, 1. The Feast of the Law, or of the rejoycing of the Law, on which day was read the last Parasha in the Pentat••uch, i. e. the last Chap∣ter but one of Deuteronomy. For the Law was divided into 52 Sections, and on every Sabbath they read one of them; the last reading was on the 23d of September. The next Sabbath the Law was begun to be read a∣gain, and this Sabbath was call'd Sabbath Bereshith, be∣cause they began then to read Bereshith, i. e. the beginning of Genesis. They celebrated the foresaid day in thank∣ing of God for his great Mercy in vouchsa••ing them the reading of the Law. 2. The Eeast of the Dedication of the Temple, instituted by Solomon, 1 Kings 8. 1. and afterwards observ'd (as some think) by the Jews. 3. The Feast of Dedication, or Encoenia, celebrated on the 25th day of November, which Month is call'd Ki••∣leu by the Hebrews. It was instituted in memory of that great Hero Iudas Macchabaeu••, who after the death of his Father Mattathias conquer'd the Greeks and Sy∣rians who had taken Ierusalem, and tyranniz'd over the

Iews. He recover'd that City, and dedicated the Tem∣ple anew, which the impious Antioch•••••• had prophan'd. He commanded this Festival to be solemnly kept yearly eight days together, beginning on the 25th day of the foresaid Month, 1 Mac. 4. 59. 4. P••rim, or the Feast of L••ts, Esther 9. 21, &c. in remembrance of the De∣liverance in Esther's time. It was kept on the 14th and 15th days of the Month Ad••r, the 12th Month, or Fe∣bruary. It was called Purim (which is a Persian word, and signifieth Lots) in memory of Haman's throwing Lots, that all the Iews in A••asuerus's Dominions should be killed: for this was an old Custom to cast Lots to find ••it and seasonable times for effecting of any great Business. They writ the Days and the Months, and put them into a Pitcher, and so what they took out (ac∣cording to the Marks they had set down) was lucky or unlucky. This Feast then of Purim, was celebrated in remembrance of the Massacre appointed by Lot against the Jews.

There were also Fasts among the Jews, which, tho they were not commanded by the Law of Mos••s, yet the Jewish Church enjoin'd them to be kept. of these you read in Zech. 8. 19. viz. the Fast of the ••ourth Month, Tamuz, or Iune, in remembrance of the time when Ierusalem was invaded, and the Tables of the Law broken, and the Book of the Law burnt, Ier. 52. 6, 7. and the Fast of the fifth Month, or Iuly, for the destruction of the Temple, Zech. 7. 3. and the Fast of the seventh Month, Tisr••, or September, for the ki••∣ling of Gedaliah, 2 Kings 25. 28, and the Fast of the Tenth (in which Month, Thebat, or December, the Ci∣ty began to be besieged) Ier. 52. 4. Thus much of the R••ligious Feast•• and Sacred S••asons, wherein the Jewish People used to lay aside Secular Business, and to be im∣ployed wholly in Religious Worship.

Sixthly, There were in the Law of Moses, some par∣ticular Obs••rvanc••s whi••h r••spected the Convers••••ion of

the W••rshippers. They were tied up as to their Com∣merce with others, they were not at liberty to associate with every one, they were confined as to their Gar∣ments, and as to their Diet. There was no such thing as Vncleanness by touching the Dead among the old Pa∣triarchs, (for we read that Ioseph kissed dead Iacob:) This was pu••ely Mosaick, and so was that of not com∣ing near any Leprous Person, or touching those who had issues of Blood, and the like. But the main thing remarkable was, the difference of Meats and Drinks: therefore I will speak particularly of that in this place, (and I may have occasion to glance on some of the rest afterwards.) Some have thought (as hath been suggest∣ed before) that this usage prevailed before the Mosaick Law, i. e. that some Creatures were clean, and others unclean, in regard of their being permitted or forbidden to be eaten. But I have already shew'd in what sense they were said to be clean o•• unclean, viz. in respect of Sacrificing, and not of eating. But under the Mosaick Law there is (and never was before) set down the Number of those Creatures which must not be eaten, and we are particularly told what the Cleanness or Unclean∣ness of them is. The clean Animals were only those that chew the Cud, and divide the Hoof. This was the Sign and Mark of them; and it must be observed, that by dividing the Hoof is meant, dividing it into two parts only, not into more; for some divide the Hoof in∣to more parts, and are not clean, as a Dog, a Lion, a Wolf. And Camels have the Hoof divided, but not quite through, it is pa••ted above, but not below; there∣fore it is said of the Camel, Levit. 11. 4. that he di∣v••deth not the Hoof, viz. from the top to the bottom, but only in part, as Na••ural Historians have observed. And as parting the Hoof, and chewing the Cud, are two signs of a clean Beast, so Fins and Scales make a Fish legally clean. And as for Fowl, you have a particular enumeration of those that are clean or unclean. Bees

also were unclean and forbidden Food to the Jews, but their Honey was not. I might observe further, that Fat is forbidden to be eaten, i. e. the Fat which covers the inward Parts, as the Heart, Liver, Kidneys, &c. Le∣vit. 3. 16. This the Jews might not eat, no not at home when they kill'd a Beast. But it is to be under∣stood of such Beasts as were used to be sacrificed to God, as Sheep, Oxen, Goats, Levit. 7. 23, 25. The Fat of these Creatures was to be burnt, but by no means eaten. And as for the Blood of these, and all other Ani∣mals, it was to be poured on the Ground, and by no means to be eaten or drank. I could add, that the Jews stretched this Abstinence from Meats beyond what was injoined, for they would not eat the hinder Legs o•• A∣nimals because the Angel strained Iacob's Thigh, where∣upon the Sinews shrank: But in Italy the Jews cut out these Nerves by Art, and eat the Legs.

If it be asked, What was the Reason that such and such Creatures were forbidden to be Food? Why did not God suffer the Jews to feed on all Animals indifferently? The Answer may be that of St. Augus••in in the like case, Quia voluit, because it seemed good to God to do so: it was his Will and Pleasure, and no Reason is to be given. Thus C••naeus and Spanhemius resolve it wholly into God's Authority and Sovereignty. But o∣thers offer Reason of God's acting thus: 1. Some think that it was God's Pleasure to ins••il Lessons of Mo∣rality by that Prohibition, according to the Quali••ies observ'd in those Creatures. They conceive that so ma∣ny Sins and Vices are represented by unclean Animals, and so many Virtues and Graces by the clean ones. In a mystical w••y God taught the Jews, and Brutes were Symbolical and Hieroglyphical. When God bid th••m not eat the Flesh of the Hare, the Swin••, and the Hawk, he warned them against the Timorousness of the one, the Filthiness of the other, and the Ravenousness of the third. Thus the antient Jewish Commentators, and

some of the1 1.235 Fathers of the Christian Church, give mo∣ral Reasons why such and such Creatures were forbid to be eaten by the Jews. And more particularly as to un∣clean Birds, they were forbid because they were Rapa∣cious, or because they were night-Birds, or because they ••ed upon impure and filthy things: on which conside∣rations they were to teach some useful Matter to the Jews. This is agreed to, not only by some of the Antient 2 1.236 Writers of the Church, but by Thomas Aq••inas and others among the Moderns, and by Monsieur3 1.237 Bochart of late. But none hath assigned the moral Account of the Law concerning difference of Meats among the Jews more satisfactorily than that worthy and ingenious Writer of this Age I. Wagenseil on Sota. 2. This Jewish Institution is though•• by others so have been de∣sign'd to teach them Temperance and Self-denial, to curb Luxury, to check an immoderate Appetite: there∣fore some Meats were denied them. So Tertulli••n. 3. Iosephus renders this Reason, because some were gross Meat, and would with their feculent Vapours pollute the Mind, and cloud the Soul. 4. Grotius assigns this as another Reason why God forbad the Jews some sorts of Food, because they were not good Nutriment for the Body. To this, it is likely, may be refer'd that Mosaick Command, Thou shalt not seeth a Kid in his Mother's Milk, Exod. 23. 19. For whilst some of the Hebrew Doctors imagine, that by virtue of this Prohi∣bition, no Flesh which is to be eaten ought to be boil'd with Milk; whilst another thinks that it is cruel and un∣natural to take away the young One from its Dam before

it is wean'd, and consequently that there is good Mora∣lity contain'd in these words; whilst others are of opi∣nion, that not Cruelty, but affectation of Curiosity and pleasing the Taste are check'd here; whilst some very strangely and unaccountably understand this place of sa∣crificing the Paschal Lamb or Kid; whilst others think this to be a Prohibition of a Gentile Custom that had a Smack of Idolatry; and whilst other odd Fancies have been propounded about the meaning of it, which you will find rehearsed by several Commentators on the Text, and by Bochart in his Hieroz••icon (part 1. Book 2. Chap. 52.) I take this to be the easy and plain Interpretation, that the Jews were forbid to eat Lambs or Kids, or Calves before the due time. To b••il a Kid in its Mother's Milk, is to dress and eat it whilst it sucks the milk of its Dam i. e. at its very first sucking, before the Flesh is come to any consistency and maturi∣ty, and consequently before it is wholesom Aliment. I look upon it as a Pr••c••p•• of Health. And so, it is probable, many of those are that make a distinction as to Animals, and forbid the eating of some rather than others, viz. because the Flesh of them is not so good and laudable Food as that of other Creatures. The Great Maimonides was of this Opinion, and posi∣tively afferts, that they were unwholefom Meats, and therefore forbidden, M••r. N••v••••h. Pag. 3. cap. 48. There was this natural Cause of the Prohibi∣tion; God consulted their Health. I do not see sufficient reason to affirm, that any of these, much less that all of them, are false Accounts of the Pro∣hibition, as a late1 1.238 Learned Writer confidently as∣serts. They are not the chief Reasons; but I cannot aver with him that they are no Reasons. But, 5. one of the Chief and main Reasons of God's appointing

the difference of Meats to the Jews was, because he in∣tended this should be a distinction between them and o∣ther People. This is the positive Reason given by God himself, in Deut. 14. 2, 3. Levit. 20. 24, 25. The Jews were a peculiar People, and therefore had this as a peculiar Law. 6. With this Reason another is insepa∣rably join'd, viz. that by this means they were kept from occasions of Idolatry: for hereby a familiar Converse with the Gentiles was hindred. They could not eat to∣gether, because some Meats were unclean to the Iews: therefore the Iews could not mix with them, but were forced to separate from them, which was a good Expe∣dient to keep them from the Idolatry of the Nations.

Lastly, This Law was given the Jews, to prevent all Idolatry on another account, as thus, God appointed some Animals Clen, and others Unclean, that these People eating the former, and abhorring the latter, might worship neither; for1 1.239 it is the highest madness imaginable to adore what we eat; and there is no like∣lihood of deifying what we abominate. Thus Theodoret and some other Fathers say, the difference of Clean and Vnclean Animals was set by God, because he foresaw the Jews inclinable to Idolatry. He ordered some to be clean, as Sheep, and Oxen, and Goats, and Doves, these being abstain'd from, and counted as Gods by the Egyptians: therefore the Israelites were commanded to eat these. They must now not only sacrifice, but feed upon that which some of them before worship'd in E∣gypt. But what the Egyptians eat, that the Iews were to abstain from: Thus God enjoined them to eat no Swines Flesh, because the Egyptians ••ed on no Flesh of four-footed Animals but this, reckoning other Creatures as Sacred, as Herodotus, Diod••re of Sicily, and several

other good Authors testifie, and as we may gather from Gen. 43. 32. & 46. 34. which places not only the fa∣mous Onkel••s and Ionathan, but the chiefest Expositors, antient and modern, interpret this way.

But did not the murmuring Israelites call to mind the flesh-pots they sat by when they were in Egypt? Exod. 16. 3. which seems to argue that the Egyptians (from whom they had these Flesh-pots) did not abstain from the flesh of Animals. To which I answer, 1. This may be understood of the flesh of Sheep, Oxen, and Goats, which it was lawful for the Israelites to eat, and which they did eat in Egypt as often as they could get it. So that this refers not to the Egyptians, but the Israelites on∣ly. Or 2. supposing it hath reference to the former, it is meant of the flesh of Fish and Fowl which the Egypti∣ans fed upon, and of which there was very great plenty in that Countrey. And it is to be understood likewise of the Pots and vessels wherein the Egyptians boil'd and kept Hogs-flesh, which was a ••ood permitted to them. And indeed generally the people of other Heathen Countries, tho they abstain'd from some other Animals out of a cer∣tain reverence to them, fed freely on Swines-flesh. Whence, I remember, Dr. Lightfoot gathers that the Gadarens were Heathens, viz. because we read there were Swine among them, Luke. 8. 32, &c.

If it be objected, the Egytians had Cattle, Gen. 47. 6. and flocks and h••rds, ver. 17. therefore they eat of their flesh: I answer, that this is no good Consequence, for they bred up these Cattle not for food, but to use in Sa∣crifices. That they did not make use of them in the for∣mer manner. I prove from that forecited place, Gen. 47. 17. where it is said, the Egyptians brought their Cattl•• (their flocks and ••erds) to Ioseph, and exchang'd them for Bread. Which they would not have done in the time of Famine, if they had thought Sheep and Oxen were to be eaten by them: for certainly these were as good provision against hunger as Bread. Therefore their bat∣tering

of those for this, shews that they were not us'd to ••eed on the flesh of Cattle, but that they reserv'd and sold their Beasts for Sacrifice, as if they were meat for their Gods, and not for themselves. This part then of the Mosaick Law seems to have been instituted on purpose to affront the Idolatry of the Egyptians, who used to a∣dore several Animals. Now G••d would shew that they were not to be a••ored by his commanding them to be eaten. This Eating was to confute their Divinity: for feeding upon their Gods was not dreamt of then, tho the Papists have introduced it since.

7ly. And Lastly, There were Vows proper to the Mo∣saick Dispensation. The famous Votaries under the Law were the Nezarites, and these are said to be either Perpetual, as Sampson, Samuel, Iohn the Baptist; or Temporary (i. e. for a certain time only) as Absalom, 1 1.240 St. Paul, and others: But if we look narrowly into the matter, we shall find (as I have elsewhere shew'd) that they were all at their liberty to relinquish their vow. As for the Rechabites, theirs was no Religious but a mere Civil Practice, grounded on a National Custom, 1 Chron. 2. 55. The old Kenites were dwellers in Tents from the beginning, and abstain'd from Wine, and they retain'd the same Usage when they came into C••naan. And when at length their posterity laid it aside, Ionadab the Son of Rechab a famous K••nit•• renew'd it, 2 Kings 10. 5. Ier. 35. 6. But in the 27th Chapter of Levi∣ticus we have a peculiar and select Account of the Religion of Vows under the Law. There you will find these Vows (which were voluntary Services tending to the Honour of God) were either Estimat••ry, or Vows of Destruction. Of the first of these the Chapter treateth from the beginning to the 28th ver. Estimatory Vows were either Personal or Real. Of the former, viz. the

Vowing or Consecrating of the Persons of Men, Women or Children to God, that Chapter speaketh from ver. 1. to the 9th. But tho the Persons were Vowed, it was in∣tended that a Valuation should serve the turn, i. e. the Priest was to set a Value on the Person, and then such a Sum of Money was to be paid by the person that made the Vow, which was to be laid out on pious uses, as re∣pairing the Tabernacle, &c. And accordingly you find the Persons are here Estimated, and so were to be redee∣med with money. Such Vows as that of Anna, who dedicated Samu••l to the Lord, were of another kind: That was a Vow to be actually performed, not to be re∣deemed. That devoted a person to a particular Function or Service, but this was the solemn promising of giving the Rate of a Person, of Himself, or his Wife, or Servant, or Child to God. And there was a general Law that all the first-born of Men should be set apart for God's Service, Exod. 13. 2. which was occasion'd by God's saving the first-born of the Israelites when he destroy'd those of the Egyptians, Exod. 13. 15. These therefore were to be redeem'd with a certain Sum which was to be paid to the Priest. This is all the meaning of this sort of Perso∣nal Vows.

Of the Real Vows the Chapter speaks from ver. 9. to 28. These were Vowings of Things to God, as Cattle, Fields, Houses, Possessions. The giving of Beasts by Vow was to sacrifice them, if they were Clean, (and indeed the First-born males of all Clean Creatures were to be sacrificed, Exod. 13. 2, 12. Num. 18. 17.) if Vnclean, to redeem them, Exod 13. 8. (for here an As••∣stands for all other Unclean Animals) that is, to pay a Price to the Priest for them. Or if they would not do this, they were to break their n••cks, they must have no use of them. The vowing of Houses and Poss••ssions to God, was bestowing them on the Priests and Levites for their maintenance, or for repairing the Tabernacle or Temple, or for any other Pious uses. But all these

might be Redeemed at a certain Price or Rate; i. e. by giving something in lieu of them to the Priests: the par∣ticular Valuations are set down in this Chapter. And here it is to be observ'd, that it was intolerable prophane∣ness to vow and offer things to God that were mean and base, and of a polluted nature. Which is thus ex∣press'd in Deut. 23. 18. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog into the house of the Lord thy God for any Vow. Money which Harlots receiv'd for prostitution was to be by no means dedicated to God. The Sacrifices which were bought with the price of their Whoredom were abominable to him. Their Money was adulterate as well as themselves. Not only they but their Gains were detestable. It was the price of Sin, and therefore must not be offer'd. This was a sufficient Caution against the future practice of some of the Pontifs of the Roman Church, who exact a Tribute of the Stews, and pretend to employ it to Religious uses. And so as for money for the sale of any vile Creature, especially of a Dog, it was not to be brought into the Sanctuary or Temple. Nay, whereas the Firstilings of all other Unclean Animals were redeemed with money, this is excepted, as being under the Law a very contemptible and base Creature, and therefore deservedly joyn'd with Harlets. So1 1.241 one tells us that a Tribute on Dogs as well as Prosti∣tutes was used among the Greeks, and he proves it out of Evagrius and Cedrenus. So much for the Real Vows, which concern things Redeemable.

But as there were some Persons and Things Vowed which might be Redeemed, so there was another fort of Devoted Things and Persons, call'd Cherem, which could not be Redeemed. Of these you read in Ver. 28, &. 29. of this Chapter. Here are meant Vows of De∣struction, i. e. Devoting Persons to slaughter and death,

or destining Things to Desolation and Ruine, as in the case of Iericho, which was pronounced a Curs'd, a De∣voted place, with all the persons in it, Ios. 6. 17. And the killing and destroying of the Seven Nations was an Instance of the like nature. The Ch••rem, the thing or persons devoted with a Curse, could not be redeem'd, as in the former cases. Some have thought that Iephthah sacrificed his Daughter by virtue of the Vow he had thus made, but I have heretofore disproved this in a Set Dis∣course, and therefore I need not say any thing of it here. Nor shall I particularly insist on any more of the Religi∣ous Usages and Rites (though they are very numerous) which were proper to the Mosaick O••conomy.

CHAP. VIII.

The Reasons of the Ceremonial Rites among the Jews. They were to Try that People. They were to Restrain them. They were injoyn'd in opposition to the Idolatrous Customs of the Heathens. Several Instances of this. Dr. Spencer opposes it. His two Parallels of the Jewish and Gent••le Rites. His opinion shew'd to be unreasonable, absurd, and contradictious. He makes the Eucharist an Imitation of a Pa∣gan Barbarous Vsage. Other Writers menti∣on'd who have fallen into the like Notions. The Ceremonial Law was prescribed the Jews be∣cause it was suitable to that Age and Dispositi∣on of the Church. Particularly it agreed with them as they were Children and Minors. It was serviceable to teach them something of Mo∣rality. Those Ritual Observances were design'd to be Types and Representations of Greater and Higher things. More especially they prefigu∣red the Messias. The Contents of the Judicial Law. Some parts of it were in force before Moses's time. What obligation it hath upon Christians now under the Gospel.

I Will now enter upon another Task: for tho I have already, as I went along, interspersed some Reasons of the particular Rites and Ceremonial Practices which I mention'd; yet, before I proceed to the next main Head propounded, I will yet further produce some gene∣ral, and some more particular Reasons of those Ceremo∣nies

and Observances already mentioned, as also of the rest of the Iudaical Customs and Practices. And these six Reasons I offer,

1. By these Ceremonious Rites God was pleas'd to try and exercise the Jews Obedience. I do not say with Cocceiu••, and some that have espoused his notions, that the Ceremonies and Observa••ces prescrib'd the Iews were impos'd upon them by God as a Punishment ••or making the Golden Calf; as if the whole Ceremonial Law was given them meerly to chastize them for their Idolatry: This is a groundless ••ancy, and con••ounds the notions of a Law and Punishment, which are two distinct things. But this we may safely and on good grounds assert, that God design'd this Law to be a Tryal of them. As God thought fit to try the Obedience of our First Parents by the Fruit of one single Tree, as it was his Pleasure to choose that particular way, so here it seem'd good to him to make experiment of the Iews readiness to comply with his Will, by imposing these Rit••s upon them, and by requiring their submission to them.

2. God thought good to put This Restraint upon the Iewish people. Before Faith came (saith the Apostle) we were1 1.242 kept under the Law, shut up unto the Faith which should afterwards be revealed, Gal. 3. 23. Those that are Critical tell us that he here compareth the Cere∣monial Law to a Strict Watch, or Military Guard set up∣on the Iews. This as it were imprison'd and shut them up, this confin'd and check'd them. This s••jag let••∣rah, this Hedg of the Law (as the Iews call'd the Mosaick Rites) enclos'd them, and kept them in. It [was the Wisdom of God to keep that People in Awe by this se∣vere Discipline. If there were no other Account to be given of the Imposing of the Legal Ceremonies but this, this were enough. But there are several others.

3. The primary Reason of the Mosaick Rites was to keep the people from Idolatry. This I had occasion to touch upon when I gave the particular Reason of the Law concerning the Distinction of Meats. But now I apply it more generally to all the parts of the Ceremonial Law. The Observance of these kept them from Idolatry; and this it did two ways: 1. As those Rites held the people in Employment. 2. As they were directly opposite to the Rites and Customs of the Idolatrous Nations•• First, I say, they serve to keep them Employ'd, and so in some measure hindred them from Idolatry. This is certain, that the Iewish people were strangely prone to imitate the Heathens that lived about them, they used to ape their gross••st Idolatries. Wherefore God used this Me∣thod, he prescribed them all these various Rites, which he knew would certainly keep them in action, and not allow them leisure to mind the Usages of other Nations. They had their hands full, and could not well apply themselves to any thing else. By busying themselves with their own Rites and Customs they were diverted from following Idolatrous ones. By the multitude and variety of those Ceremonies they were diverted from the Idolatry of the Gentiles who were round about them, and who otherwise would have infected them with their Pa∣gan fashions. St. Chrysostom expresseth it thus:1 1.243 Th••se Ceremonies were prescribed to the Jews for a certain Bri∣dle to them, and that they might yield an occasion of Bu∣siness and Employment. They had work enough to do, and so could not attend to Idolatrous practices. Second∣ly, The Mosaick Rites and Ceremonies were a good Remedy against these, because they were directly oppo∣site to the Idolatrous Rites of the Gentiles. I have shew'd this already in the Instance of forbidding of Swines

flesh, &c. But now I will make it good in other parts of the Mosaick Law: I will let you see that they were in∣stituted in opposition to the Customs and Practices of the Heathen Idolaters.

We must know then that the Eastern Nations, as As∣syrians, and Egyptians, and others that were neighbours to the Iews, used these following Ceremonies, viz. Cut∣ting their flesh, Rounding the corners of their heads, Sowing the ground with divers seeds: It was usual for Women to wear the Garments of Men, and Men those of Women; they accustom'd themselves to eating of the blood of Animals, looking towards the East when they Worshipp'd, and Adoring the rising Sun; and some things likewise relating to Sacrifices and Oblations might be mention'd. These and many more were constantly practised by the Zabians and other neighbouring people who were given to Idolatry, and they were used by them in a Superstitious and Idolatrous manner. This you will find proved by the Excellent Selden, Hottinger, and o∣ther Learned Writers out of1 1.244 Maimonides. And from him the Learned2 1.245 Dr. Spencer and others shew that even all the Rites and Ceremonies used at the Paschal Feast, which I particularly enumerated before, were in opposi∣tion to Idolatrous Customs among the Gentiles. The Paschal Lamb was to be a Male of the first year, i. e. a young Ram, in defiance of the idolatrous Egyptians who counted a Ram the most sacred Animal: this therefore God bids them kill and sacrifice. They must not eat it raw, because the Heathens eat their Sacrifices raw. It was to be eaten in the house, to avoid the Procession used by the Gentiles. A Bone was not to be broken, because the Heathens tore their Sacrifices in pieces. The head with the legs and purtenance were to be eaten, to affront

the Pagans who eat the Entrails only. Nothing was to remain till the morning, in opposition to the Heathens who used the relicks of Sacrifices superstitiously. It was not to be sodden in water, but to be roasted, to op∣pose the custom of the Egyptians and others who boyl'd their Sacrifices.

This Maimonides was indeed the first that opposed and confuted that received opinion of some Iewish Doctors, that there was no Reason to be given of the Ritual Law, but that it was wholly from the Soveraign Will and Plea∣sure of God. He on the Contrary proves that these Mo∣saick Rites have Reason to vouch them, and that they were not given as the Arbitrary Commands of an Abso∣lute Empire over mankind. And he came to know this particular Reason, which I now assign of the Mosaick Ob∣servances, from his being acquainted with the Rites and Ceremonies of the Zabii. He largely insists on this Pro∣position, that most of the Jewish Rites were instituted to oppose the Superstitions of those Zabii, an antient sort of Idolaters in the East. The very things which those Hea∣thens practised are particularly forbid by God to the Iews: Hence they are forbid to3 1.246 cut or mangle their flesh, to 3 1.247 shave the corners of their heads, to4 1.248 sow the ground with different seeds, because all these were Superstitious Usages of the Zabii. Likewise5 1.249 eating of blood was severely forbidden on the same account, and so was6 1.250 the Wo∣mans wearing the Garment of a Man, and vice versa. This changing of Vestments is forbid (saith7 1.251 Selden) that they might not imitate the Worshippers of the Syrian Ve∣nus, who had various Rites in worshipping her, and ac∣cording to the difference of those put on Mens or Wo∣mens clothes. And this Learned Antiquary had it from 8 1.252 Maimonides, who tells us that by that Mosaick Pre∣cept

is forbid Idolatrous Worship, and particularly the Worship of Venus Male and Female in use among the Assyrians. The Iews were forbid also3 1.253 to seeth a Kid in his Mother's milk, i. e. to offer a Kid or any Animal in Sacrifice whilst it is immature, and sucking its Dam: It must be kept up seven days with its Dam, Exod. 22. 30. Or, this may refer not only to Sacrifices and First∣fruits, but to Food; they were not to eat a Kid till it was come to a sufficient growth, i. e. till it was fit, by rea∣son of age, to be eaten: so this is applied in Deut. 14. 21. In either of these senses the Precept may seem to be oppos'd to a Heathenish Zabian Rite, and therefore was enjoyn'd the Iews, saith our Learned Gregory. A Dog was the most abominable Animal of all the Creati∣on under the Law (as appears from what was said be∣fore) the occasion of which was this, it was the chief Animal and in highest respect among the Egyptians, and was worshipp'd by them. Whence in opposition to this base and idolatrous venerating of it by the Egyptians, it is by the Mosaick Law rendred the most filthy and detestable Creature upon earth. So the Iews were com∣manded to worship toward the West, and accordingly the Holy of Holies in the Sanctuary and Temple was built West-ward, in opposition to the Sabaan Worship∣pers of the Sun, who turn'd towards the East. There∣fore God would have the Iews turn their backs to the Sun when they worshipped.

And several other Precepts of the Mosaick Law were given in direct opposition to the superstitious Rites and Ceremonies of the Sab••••ans, Chaldeans, Assyrians, and other Gentile Nations. God would not permit His People to symbolize with the Pagans in their corrupt Customs. To this end, as4 1.254 Theod••ret observes, God

commanded the Iews to kill and sacrifice those Animals which the Egyptians chiefly held as sacred, that they might not take them for Gods. And with him agrees 5 1.255 Maimonides, who saith there was a design in this Com∣mand to check the Idolatrous inclination of the Iews, and to condemn the Idolatrous practice of the Egyptians. This very thing was taken notice of by the Gentile His∣torians; thus Diodorus Siculus saith, of Moses,6 1.256

That he commanded the Rites of Sacrificing, and the man∣ner of the Iews Lives, to differ much from the way and usage of other Nations.

And Tacitus speaking of this same Law-giver, saith,7 1.257

That the Iewish Nati∣on was set up by him, by his enjoyning them new Rites, and such as were contrary to the Customs of other Mortals. Those things were counted Prophane with them which are held Sacred with us: and again, those things were lawful with them which are reputed abominable with by us.

Whence it appears that the Mosaick Laws and Rites were given to the Iews because they were repugnant to the practices of the Gentiles, and that one great design of these Laws was to prevent Idolatry for the future, and to keep them at the greatest distance imaginable from it.

But tho this be a very clear notion, yet it hath been strongly opposed of late.8 1.258 One Ingenious Gentleman is bold to say, that God enjoyn'd the Iews the use of Sacrifices (which were the chiefest of their Religious Ce∣remonies) because they had been used to this kind of Worship in Egypt, and God had no other way to bring

them off from their Idolatry but this. Therefore he was forced to comply with them, and indulge them in this Pagan folly. But there is another9 1.259 of very great Lear∣ning that outdoth him in this Point, and hath pro••essed∣ly and amply maintain'd this Assertion, That most of the Rites and Usages which we read of in the Old Testa∣ment, and which were prescrib'd by God to the Iews, were borrow'd from the Gentile Idolaters, viz. worship∣ping God in a Tabernacle, Purifications, New Moons, the Scape-Goat, Offering of Sacrifices, making Horns for the Altars, Feasts at Sacrifices, or eating what was left of the Sacrifices, keeping of Festival Days, offering of First-fruits, paying of Tithes, the Priest's Vestments of Linen, the Vow of Nazarites, or letting the hair grow for a time, and then consecrating it to God, the Tem∣ple, Urim and Thummim, the Ark and Cherubims. In all these Instances he endeavours to shew how God fol∣lowed the Gentile Worshippers, and accordingly he under∣takes to give several Parallels between the Iewish and the Heathen Rites. I had occasion heretofore to offer one of them, and now I will present the Reader with two more.

The first is of the Ark which both the Gentiles and the Iews had. 1. The Gentiles, who were cursed Idolaters, had Arks made of C••dar, and covered with Gold. To comply with ••his time and rich Invention of the Heathens God caus'd an Ark to be made for the Iewish people of the same materials, i. e. of Shittim wood, which passeth for C••dar with this Author, and it was to be overlaid with pure Gold; Exod. 25. 10, 11. 2. The Pagan Worshippers call'd these Chests or Arks Holy: accor∣dingly the Ark of the Covenant is stiled so, Num. 4. 20. 1. Kings 8. 8. Thus they were to be like one another as to their title of Sanctity. 3. The Gentile Gods shew'd themselves angry against those that look'd into their Ark, and sometimes struck dead the prophane handlers

of it: even so (saith this Writer) the true God punish'd the curiosity and prophaneness of such as peep'd into his Ark, or irreverently laid hands upon it, 1. Sam. 6. 19. 4. The Idolaters placed their Ark in the Temple, and in the chief Apartment of their Temple: thus the Ark of the Testament was set in the Holiest place of the Taber∣nacle or Temple. Thus they agree as to the place. 5. The Pagans had their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 men appointed on pur∣pose for the carrying of their Ark. Every one was not permitted to be employ'd in that sacred work: yea they chose persons of the highest Rank among them to execute this worthy Office. Thus the bearing of the Ark among the Israelites was the work of those who were Consecra∣ted to that Employment, and were of the Levitical Race, which was esteemed most Worthy and Noble. 6. Both sorts of Arks agree in their Use and principal End, which was to contain the sacred things belonging to God and Idols. As the Pagans Ark held their magi∣cal Instruments, Diabolical Utensils, and prophane Knacks and Trumpery, even so, and just so God appoin∣ted his Ark to hold and preserve the Tables of the Law. Is not this playing with Holy Things? The very exposing these particulars is, I think, Confutation sufficient.

The Second Parallel is between the Egyptian Images and the Cherubims: 1. Saith he, those Images were held to be the most sacred things among that people; so the Iews, God's people, knew nothing more Sacred and Au∣gust than the Cherubinical Images. 2. The Images of Egypt were generally made of Gold: In imitation of which the Cherubims were of the same costly matter.

3. The Egyptians, all the time of their Worship, cast their eyes on their Images; In like manner the Iews look'd towards the Cherubins whenever they pray'd, or sprinkled the Blood of the Sacrifices. 4. The Egyptian Images were the Seat or Throne of their Gods, from whence they gave Answers to those who came to inquire of them; after which Example God placed his Royal

Seat or Throne between the Cherubins, and from thence he gave forth Answers to Moses whenever he came to consult upon great occasions. 5. The Images of those Pagans were of a mixt shape, and did not resemble any one Animal: thus the C••erubim appointed by God were miscellaneous Images, made up of the likeness of Man and Beasts. 6. He adds that it was the Custom of the Egyptian Priests to bear their Images on their shoulders, and to carry them about with great Pomp. The Iewish Priests were commanded by God to follow this Practice, whence we read that they li••ted the Ark and Cherubim up∣on their shoulders, and carried them in Procession among the people with great Ovations and signs of Rejoycing.

These are the Particulars which make up the two Pa∣rall••ls; which if this Author had inverted, i. e. had shew'd that the Pagans imitated God's Ark, that their Images were an Aping of the Cherubim, he had under∣taken a laudable Work: but the hath taken the quite contrary course, and labours to perswade us that God was punctually observant of every little Idolat••ous Ri••e of the Heathen Worshippers. He makes the True God most diligently and precisely tread in the steps of the false Gods and Idols. I appeal to the World whether this be Doctrine becoming a Christian Theologer. And moreover, I will appeal to any sober and considerate Man whether it be reconcileable to Sense, Reason, and Truth, that God should make Laws exactly contrary to the Customs of the Chaldeans and Egypti••••s, and other Pagan Nations (which is freely acknowledged by this very Author) shewing thereby that he hated the very Semblance of their Rites, and that his Will was that his People should avoid the very Appearance of any such practices, and yet that at the same time he should give them Laws exactly complying with the Customs and practices of those Gen••iles. Throughout his whole Se∣cond Book this Author endeavours to prove that the Mo∣saick Laws are diam••trically opposed to the Gentile

Rites, and that therefore God injoined those Laws be∣cause they were so directly contrary to the Pagan Rights and Usages. Yet in his whole Third Book he labours to prove that the Iewish Rites were taken from the Gentile Idolaters. He (as well as Maimonides, Scaliger, Hot∣tinger and others) asserts that the Mosaick Institutions were a remedy against Zabiism, i. e. they were given and injoyn'd to the Iews to keep them from Idolatry, especially that practis'd by the Zabii, that is, the Chal∣deans and Arabians, yea and Egyptians, whose Idola∣trous practices were most known in Moses's time. But you may wonder to find at the same time the great Asser∣ter of this Notion endeavouring to convince his Readers in many places of his Writings, that God in the institu∣ting and framing of the Iewish Laws, borrowed many things from those Zabii, and designedly made his Laws in imitation of them.

What strange Notions are these! God instituted di∣vers Rites me••ely and purely in opposition to the Idola∣trous Rites of the Heathens; for he would have the Iews to be Antipodes to the Gentiles in their Worship: Yet he appointed several other Rites and Observances, and strict∣ly commanded his people to use them for this reason, be∣cause they were such Rites as were observed by the Hea∣then Idolaters. The Iews were forbid to symbolize with the Pagans, lest they should learn their Idolatry: and yet they were commanded to practise sundry of their Rites, that they might not relapse into Idolatry. What? must we believe that a great part of Moses's Laws were made on purpose to oppose the Rites of the Zabii, and like∣wise that God takes these Heathens for his pattern, and gives his people several Commandments merely to comply with their Usages? Is it to be credited that God forbad and abhorred the Gentile practices, and yet at the same time appointed his people several Rites which the Gentiles used, yea because they were Gentile Rites, and practis'd by the Idolatrous Nations, as this Author expresly asserts?

He hath no where satisfied these Difficulties, and re∣conciled these Absurdities and Contradictions, which it was very necessary for him to have done, in order to his gaining belief among Understanding Considerate per∣••••ns. But being warmed with this Notion, he keeps on with full career, and attempts to shew (as he imagines) that many Customs Prophane and Diabolical were taken into the M••saick Laws by God, he translating them from Satan's service to his own. A great part of his Third Book is spent in this. With those Old Rites the Devil had been served, and now he pretends it is God's turn to be serv'd by them. He labours to shew there that the most Holy and Tremendous things in our Religi∣on are taken from the most prophane and impure practi∣ces of the worst of Heathens. In short, he maintains no other than this throughout his whole Third Book, that God raked up all the Vain, Lud••crous, Superstitious, Impure, Obscene, Irreligious, Impious, Prophane, Idolatrous, Execrable, Magical, Devillish Customs which had been first invented, and afterwards constantly used by the most Barbarous Gentiles, the Scum of the World, the Dregs of Mankind, and out of all these patch'd up a great part of the Religion which he appointed his own People. If you can credit this (and you must credit it if you assent to what that Author propounds) there is nothing too hard for your Belief and Assent.

Nay, he would make one of the most Solemn Offices of Christianity to be in pure Imitation of a Pagan Usage for1 1.260 he saith, Christ in Celebrating the Holy Sacrament of his Supper, refer'd to the Custom of the Barbarous Scy∣thians and other Savage Nations, who used to drink Blood at their making of Covenants and Bargains: thence it is said, This Cup is my Blood of the New Testament; drink ye all of this. This was the highest and most daring re∣sult

of his ••ormer Notion. But I hope the Learned Doctor, before he left the World, corrected his Error, and entertain'd other thoughts of these things, and there∣fore I will not press them any further: especially because I discours'd of this matter somewhat freely when I made it my business to prove that many of the Pagan Rites and Customs in Religion (as well as in Secular Affairs) were borrow'd from the Iews and their Sacred Usages: which is directly contrary to what this Author asserts, viz. that the Rites and Ceremonies injoyn'd by God himself to the Iews were of Pagan Extraction.

I might here mention that some others have fallen into the same or the like Notion, and have made use of it to ill purpose. Our2 1.261 English Socinians approve of this Doctrine, that God complied with the Idolatrous Nati∣ons in the Sacrifices and other Rites which he instituted. And some of the Antienter Racovians run up higher, and refer the method of Man's Redemption and Salvation to the Usages of the Pagan World. Thus a3 1.262 noted Man among them tells us that God sent Christ into the World in compliance with a Custom that was very prevailing, viz. that those who were eminent and celebrated for their Virtue and their serviceableness to Mankind, were after their death Canonized as 'twere, and placed in Hea∣ven as an inferiour kind of Deities: and those that wan∣ted their help used to implore it, and make them their Mediators. Even so God exalted Christ, who had been an Excelle••t and Useful Person, and made him a kind of God. And as noted a person of our own seems to have imbibed the same Doctrine, for4 1.263 he asserts that a gre•••• part of the Iewish Religion, which was instituted by God himself, seems to have been a plain condescension to the

general apprehension of Mankind (i. e. the Heathen world, as he explains himself afterwards) concerning the way of appeasing the offended Deity by Sacrifices. Nay, he makes the Incarnation of Christ, and his Suffering of death to be a condescension to the Pagans, who (he saith) loved a visible Deity, and had a great esteem of Sacrifices, especially of human Sacrifices, and used to Dei••y their Benefactors a••d Heroes. That is very strange, which he gives as Reason why Christ was incarnate,4 1.264 that Men (viz. the Gentiles) who were much given to admire Myst••ri••s in Religion, might have one that is a Mystery indeed. So that all was direct compliance with the Gentiles, and according to this Writer the way of Salvation of Mankind is derived from the impious Customs of the Heathens. But his 5 1.265 more Particular words (which are almost too harsh to be mention'd) I shall have occasion shortly to represent to the Reader in a more proper place.

4. The Ceremonial Law and other Mosaick Usages were prescribed the Iewish people, because these were fit and proper for them at that time, because they were most suitable to their present Geniu•• and Disposition. Thus the Apostle in Gal. 3. 24, &c. very handsomely il∣lustrates the nature of this part of the Legal Dispensation: The Law was our Schoolmaster, saith he. Here is Moses with a Rod in his hand. We were instituted and educa∣ted (saith the Apostle) under the Pedag••gi•• of the Law, for being but in our minority, we were not capable then of a higher Institution and Instruction. But this fitted and prepared us by degrees for the reception of that other, and this Schoolmaster of the Law serv'd as an usher to the Gospel. But saith the Apostle in the next verse, After that Faith (i. e. the time of the Gospel) is come, w•• are no longer under a Schoolmaster: we are then no longer

under the lash of the Law; our state and condition do not require it. And God is pleas'd to administer things wisely according to the condition and circumstances we are under. And this Apostle by another fit Allusion in Gal. 4. 1, &c. sets forth the nature of this Oeconomy which he had spoken of before: The Heir as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be Lord of all, bu•• is under Tut••rs and Governors, until the time ap∣pointed of the Father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: but when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, &c. In which words St. Paul compareth the Iudaical Law to a Tutor or Guardian, under whom the Heir doth not enjoy that freedom of a Son which afterwards he is to come to. This (saith he) was the case of the Iewish people: they were but Minors and Pupils, and so stood in need of a Tutor, i. e. one that is appointed to take care and have the charge of those who by reason of their insufficient age and understanding cannot look to themselves. The Ceremonial Law was the Iews Guar∣dian whilst they were under age: this sowr Governour and Overseer kept them in, and curb'd them, and on that account was very useful to them at that time.

But the Apostle seems here to recur to his former comparison of the Law to a Schoolmaster, when he adds, that the Iews as long as they were Children, were in bondage under the Elements of the world. The Iews were then got no further than their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, their First Elements, they were but conning their Alphabet. Their Sacrifices and Circumcision were as it were so many plain Letters in Blood; and there were other Fair and Legible Characters: but there were few of the common Iews so good Proficients as to Spell out of them any thing of a future and higher Con∣cernment. These and their other Rudiments were suta∣ble to the mean Capacity and Non-age of the Iewish Church; when they were in this State, such a low and

mean Dispensation as this, was good enough for them. Diversity of Ages calls ••or diversity of Actions and Beha∣viour, and consequently for diversity of Laws. Parents rule Children after another manner than when they ar∣rive to any ripeness of Years, and are capable of Dis∣course. So God ordereth his Church: that is fit for it at one time which is not at another. Israel was a Child, Hos. 11. 1. that was the state of the Iews when they were call'd out of Egypt. And the Apostle uses the same Expression, as you have heard. Now, when the Iew∣ish Church was in this lower Form, the First Rudiments were most agreeable to that condition: these Beginners were to be used to their Letters. God dealt with that People according to their Weakness and Shallowness. Wherefore we may observe that he Invited and Allured them, as well as Terrified them: The Promise of a Land flowing with Milk and Honey suited these Children well.

1 1.266 Pueris olimdant crustula blandi Doctores, elementa veli••t ut disc••r•• prima.

Earthly and Carnal things, and the Conveniencies of this present Life were chiefly propounded to the Iews to encourage them, to draw them on gently, and to win upon them.

Children are taken with a gawdy Outside; according∣ly these were brought up with Ceremonies, Fine and Gay things, to please their Childish Fancies. The goodly Garments and pompous Vestments of the High-Priest were a very agreeable Sight to them, the jingling Bells of A••ron were a very pleasing Musick. Indeed the whole Mosaick Work was very Curious and Fine, most of the Legal Furniture was Rich and Sumptuous, and

therefore a Sutable Entertainment for them. To teach and instruct Children (whose Reason is weak and imper∣fect) we use Emblems, Pictures, and Representations. Thus Types and Symbols were a sort of Instructions su∣table to the Iews: In those dark Times these Shadows served very well. But these Ceremonious Rites and Prac∣tices were in order to something else. God call'd the Iews by things Carnal and Sensual to those that are Spi∣ritual, by Temporal Objects to those that are Eternal, and by things Earthly unto those that are Heavenly. The Mosaick Laws were like Frames and Props which support an Arch, till it is finish'd and can stand alone: then the Supporters are removed, and become useless to the Building. When the Evangelical Oeconomy approa∣ched, then the Iewish Ceremonies and Observances ceas'd, and were laid aside: for the Ritual Law of Moses was given on purpose to be2 1.267 a Governour and Manager of Childish and Imperfect Souls, and to prepare and train them up to something that is Manly and Perfect, viz. the Administration of the Gospel, which was to succeed. Nor is this unworthy of God, for he wisely alters his methods, in his administring the Affairs of the World, 3 1.268 according to the Times and Ages he deals with. Wherefore he is wont to approve of such and such Prac∣tices for a season, and then afterwards to change them. Which argues not any mistake or error, or want of fore∣knowledg in God (as the Deists, who laugh at the Iewish as well as the Evangelical Dispensation, would suggest) but the alteration is prudently made according to the cir∣cumstances of Times and Persons.

5. It was the opinion of the Iewish Doctors and

Rabbies that some of these Ceremonial Usages were de∣sign'd to instruct the Iews in their necessary Du••ies and Practices, and to teach them wholesom Lessons of Mo∣rality. This Mystical and Moral meaning of the diffe∣rent kinds of Sacrifices, difference of Meats, and all the other Mosaick Observances, is set down by Theodoret in his Questions on Levi••icu••, which I will not h••re recite. And4 1.269 Aquinas and others in the Account or Rationale which they give of the Ceremonial Institutions, speak something of this. I know indeed that many of old, and some more lately have most fondly and fantastically interpreted those Ritual Laws: what they deliver is their own conceit, and hath no foundation to support it. They under the pretence of giving the meaning of those Iewish Rites say and write any thing. This is that sort of men who fill all things•• in Divinity with Allegory and Mystery, and thereby abuse and prophane the Holy Scrip∣ture. But yet there may be a Moral sense profitably made of the Mosaick Law which treats of the Ceremo∣nies: wholesom Instructions may be drawn thence for directing our Lives and Manners: and this might be part∣ly, and by the•• by design'd in the instituting these things.

6. These Ritual Observances and Ceremonial practi∣ces were Types and Figures to represent greater things that were to come. God chose out a certain People from the rest of the World, to make them a Spectacle to all others, and by his wonderful dealing with them•• as in a Type, to signifie to us the admirable method of his gracious Will to Mankind in future Ages. All their Promises and Rewards were presignificative of the Mer∣cy intended to be exhibited to the World afterwards. And the same may be said of their Ceremonial and Ritual Worship. I have shew'd already that the Mosaick Sa∣crifices

and the Tabernacle, and all the things appertain∣ing to it, and the Feast of the Passover signified higher Things: but it is as true that the Other considerable Ri••es enjoyn'd by Moses's Law did so too, for there is the like Reason for one as for another. That they were to represent Sublime, Sacred and Heavenly things, we are assured from the Infallible Scriptures, where they are call'd5 1.270 the Example and Shadow of heavenly things, and 6 1.271 Patterns of things in the Heavens. And more ••ully the Apostle declares that Meat and Drink (i. e. the difference of these) and Holy-Days, and New Moons, and Sab∣bath Days are a Shadow of things to come, but the Body is of Christ, Col. 2. 16, 17. The main design of those things was to prefigure the Messias, and the Benefits of the Gospel: these are the Substance, and the others were the Shadow. Thus St.7 1.272 Ierom, speaking of the Book of Leviticus, saith that all the Sacrifices in it, yea almost all the syllables, and the Garments of Aaron, and the whole Levi••ick Order breat ••e heavenly Sacraments. Thus Ius∣tin Martyr informed the Iew whom he discours'd with, that all the Ordinances and Rites of the Mosaick Law were8 1.273 Figures, Symb••ls and Declara••ions of the things which were to happen afterwards unto Christ. The9 1.274 Al∣legorical Interpreters, who apply the Mosaick Rites to the Church of Christ, and to the Messias himself, tho they are sometimes more Ingenious than Solid, and may be thought to strain and force some things, yet as to the main they let us see that those Mosaick and Ritual Constitutions had some reference to the Gospel, and that most of them ••ypifie and represent the great things of the Christian Dispensation.

Indeed the Mosaick Observances, taken according to the mere Letter, are very odd and strange, and some of them seem to be very light and frivolous, and unwor∣thy of their Author. I am bold to say with9 1.275 Origen that if these Ceremonial Laws of Moses have no other mean∣ing than the literal one, they come far short of the Ro∣man, Athenian, or Lacedemonian Laws. But if you consider that they were serviceable to try the Iews Obe∣dience, to restrain them and keep them in awe, to di∣vert them from Idolatry, and that they were ••uitable to their present Condition, and also that they were to in∣form their manners, and Lastly, that they were Images and Types of Spiritual things, that they represented and pointed out the Messias with all his Blessed Underta∣kings, and the unspeakable Benefits which accrue to us thence, you will not say those Laws were light and ludicrous and unworthy of God, but that they were of great and singular use, and serv'd to most excellent pur∣poses. This is the best account I can give of the true Reasons of this part of the Legal Dispensation, viz. why after so long a time from the Creation these Ceremonies and Observations (some of which were very irksome and burdensome) were imposed by God on the Hebrew People, and lasted till Christ's coming.

It may be expected I should treat, in the next place, of the Iudicial Law, which was for preserving of Civil Peace and Justice among the Iews. This was the Com∣mon or Municipal Law of that Nation. It contain'd Precepts concerning the ordering of that People in the matter of Judgement, Punishments, Contracts, Division of Lands and Inheritances, making of War and the like. These Precepts may be distinguish'd according to the different Ranks of Men, and so, 1. they have a regard to

the Relation between the Prince or Magistrate and the People: there you have the Injunctions which concern Governours and their Office, and likewise the Duty which is to be paid to them. 2. They have respect to the Relation and Commerce which People have with one another: and there you have Precepts concerning Buying and Selling, &c. 3. They direct the Iews as to their Be∣haviour towards Strangers▪ here are Rules concerning entertaining of Strangers, going to War against their Enemies, &c. 4. They take notice of Domestick Re∣lations, and accordingly give directions as to the beha∣viour of Husbands, Wives, Children, Servants, &c.

It is not of this Law that I am concern'd at present to speak, because it is Secular rather than Religious, and so doth not properly fall under my consideration when I treat of the Dispensations of Religion. Only, as we ob∣serv'd before of some of the Ceremonies enjoyn'd by the Mosaick Law, that they were in use before that Dispensa∣tion, so here it may be noted that some of the Iudicial Laws were in force before Moses's time, as punishing A∣dultery with death: (only with this difference, that be∣fore the Law Adultery was punish••d with Fire, but now with S••oning) Killing of a Man or Woman was pu∣nish'd with death: marrying the Brother's Widow was enjoyn'd: Cutting off from the People was a Sanction a∣mong the Patriarchs. The Right of Primogeniture ob∣tain'd before the Law of Moses.

Moreover, I will remark that some things in this juncture pass for Laws, which are rather, and more properly may be call'd Dispensations or Permissions. Thus Poligamy, which was practis'd by Lamech first, then by Abraham and Iacob, is now permitted under the Law, as in Elkana••, David, Solomon, &c. And thus they permitted a Man to put away his Wife for For∣nication or Adultery. As for the Degrees of Consangui∣nity and Affinity, within which the Iews were forbid to marry, the 18th Chapter of Leviticus gives us a full ac∣count

of them, and I shall afterwards have an opportu∣nity of discoursing of them. Therefore I will not insert any thing of them in this place, for what I have said is sufficient for my purpose, which was to give you some account of this distinct Administration, and to let you see wherein it differeth from the rest.

Only here I will inquire what obligation these Iudici∣al Laws have upon Christians. It was the opinion of Castalio and some others, that these are to be perpetually retain'd in Christian Commonwealths, but it is not rea∣sonable to pronounce this in the gross, for we ought ra∣ther to distinguish concerning this matter. I could ob∣serve then to you that as Moral Laws, viz. concerning the Poor, Forgiving of Injuries, Equity in Contracts, Duty towards Strangers, were mixed with the Cere∣monial ones in Levit. 19. So several Moral or Natural Laws, such as oblige all Nations, were delivered on Mount Sinai mixed with Iudicial ones. Such was the Law against Homicide, the Duty of Men to Widows, and Orphans, the Reverence due to the Magistrate, and others mention'd in the 21, and 22. Chapters of Exodu••. These belong not to the M••saical Polity or the Iudicial Law, but concern all Persons at all Times, and in all Pla∣ces. In the inquiry then proposed, there are these two kinds of Laws, 1. Such as have respect to the particu∣lar Condition and Circumstances of the Iews, and concern their individual Polity and State. 2. Such as are not appropriated to the State of the Hebrew People, but were given to them as Men rather than Iews, and consequently may be serviceable and useful to other Nations. As to the former of these, they do not oblige Christians in the least, but expired with the State of that People: but the latter are obligatory under the Gospel, so far as they are of common Equity, and as they may be made use of now as well as then. And tho what our Church (in her Seventh Article) saith is to be granted, namely, that the Civil Precepts of the Mosaick Law

ought not of necessity to be receiv'd in any Common∣wealth, yet where Reason and Equity commend those Civil Constitutions to any Commonwealth or Kingdom, they are to be embraced and made use of. For there is some Reverence to be given to those Politicks which were the Invention and Appointment of Heaven: and so far as they were not appropriated to the condition of the Iewish People, they may be practised among Chri∣stians without offence. Thus the Law of Tithes is law∣fully adopted into our Constitutions in this Nation.

So likewise if you look to their bodily Punishments, you will see that some of them are made use of in Chri∣stian Kingdoms, if not all of them, in one place or other. But here it will be asked, May Christians inflict severer Punishments than the Iewish Law prescribed? To which1 1.276 Sr. W. Raleigh answers thus, Christian Magistrates may abate of the severity of Moses's Law, and mitigate the punishment of Death, but they can't make it more hea∣vy; for it becomes not the Gospel to shew more rigour than the Law. But why then is a Capital Punishment i••flicted on Thieves and Robbers not only among our selves but in other Christian Countries, whereas such Of∣fenders were only to make Restitution, or to be Sold, ac∣cording to the Mosaick Law? I answer, Law-givers have ••ound that a less punishment than Death is not a sufficient Restraint, and therefore think it necessary to make use of this. And as to what is alledged, we re∣turn this, that Thieves sometimes had a greater Punish∣ment than a Mulct even under the Law. We read that they might have been kill'd by those that found them breaking up a house in the night time, Exod. 22. 2. And it appears from that Judgment and Decision of King David in 2 Sam. 12. 5. that Theft in some cases was Capital. And we read that two Thieves were Cru∣cifled

with Christ, which was no Punishment for Theft among the Romans, and therefore we may probably think the Execution was Iewish, and had ••ome founda∣tion in the Mosaick Law, according to which some kind of Theft was Felony: and in this, as in several other things, the Christian Laws diffe•• not from the Iewish ones. It is probable that the Jewi•••• Cherem or Cu••••ing off gave occasion to the Christian Church to in••••oduce Excommunication, which is a Cutting off or Separating from the Communion of the Faithful. A very useful Ordinance in the Church. And there seem to be among Christians several footsteps of other Cons••itutions (and those merely Secular) which were among the Iews, as Apprentices generally serving six or seven Years, which may be borrow'd from the Iewi•••• Servants being ••et free every seventh Year. So from the Law of dividing the Lands to the Israelites by L••t, the Custom is re••eiv'd in many Christian Countreys of assigning portions of Land in that manner, and in case of Co••te••tion especially to have recourse to L••ts. And in other Instances it might be shew'd, how the Mosaick Laws are imitable by Christians in the times of the Gospel. And it is cer∣tain that this may lawfully be done, so far as those Laws are of common Use and Equity, and advance the welfare of the Publick, and promote Charity, good Will, Justice, Innocence, Peace and Tranqu••llity in the Commonwealth. It is needless to sally forth to any more particulars here: for my design was to present you with a competent Draught of this part of the Iud••ical O••conomy, which I hope I have done. Thus much of this Mosaick O••conomy.

CHAP. IX.

The several ways and kinds of Divine Revelation under the different Oeconomies. Ordinary Ex∣ternal Revelation was by hearing or by seeing. Inward Revelation was by Dreams or Prophe∣tick Inspiration. What Prophecy was. How they knew to distinguish between True Pro∣phets and False ones. The extraordinary ways of Revelation were, 1. That which was vouch∣safed to Moses alone. The Nature of it. It differ'd from other Revelations as to Degree only. 2. That from between the Cherubims. 3. The Urim and Thummim. These are not the same with the Teraphim. They were not borrowed from Pagan Idolaters. This would be a countenancing of Image-Worship. The absurdity and impiety of their opinion who hold that the Urim and Thummim were of Hea∣then Extraction. These were no other than those bare words written or engraven on the High Priest's Breastplate. An Objection an∣swer'd.

BE••ore I proceed to the next Dispensation, I look upon this as a proper place wherein to speak of the Several Kinds of Revelations, the various ways of God's Communicating himself to Mankind in the different Dis∣pen••ations which we have discoursed of. Here I will re∣count them all together. God under all his Administra∣tions made known his Will by the Law of Nature and

Reason which he implanted in Men: but I speak not of this here, but of Divin•• and Supernatural Revel••tion, as distinct from the Discoveries of natural Light and Rea∣son. There were several ways of this Revelation: for God not only spake at sundry times (as the Apostle saith) i. e. in the days of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Ioshua, the Iudges, David, and of the following Kings and Prophets; (or, as the2 1.277 Greek word signifieth like∣wise, He spake by degrees, by several parts, not all at once, but now one thing and then another) But He al∣so spake3 1.278 in divers manners, i. e. there was a great va∣riety of Revelations, there were several distinct ways of God's discovering his Will to the World: and as the World was more and more corrupted, the discoveries of God's Will were multiply'd and increas'd.

These supernatural Revelations are divided by Writers into Immediate and Mediate, but they can't well agree in determining which are of the former sort, and which of the latter. Some rank Revelations by Dreams and Visi∣ons under those that are Immediate, others again hold that they belong to mediate Discoveries, and in several other instances I could shew how they disagree. To a∣void controversy here I will take another course, and I offer this as the exactest Division of Divine Revelations, viz. that they are either Ordinary and Frequent, or Ex∣traordinary and Rare. The Ordinary are either Out∣ward or Inward. The Outward are made to the Bodily Sense, viz. Hearing and Seeing. The Inward are made to the Soul, viz. either to the Fancy, when persons are asleep, or to the Rational mind of Man when he is a∣wake.

God spake, i. e, communicated his Will, 1. In an Outward manner, viz. to the Bodily Senses, and first to

the Hearing. This was done first by an Immediate Voice: so God spake to Adam and Eve when he com∣manded them not to eat of the Tree of Knowledg of Good and Evil, Gen. 2. 16, 17. (which was the first Revelation we read of) and thus He communicated his Pleasure to them at other times, mention'd in the third Chapter, for 'tis call'd the Voice of the Lord, ver. 8. Thus he reveal'd his Will several times to Abraham, Isaac and Iacob, as we read. By such a Voice ••ramed by the air, God spake to Moses in the Tabernacle and in the Bush, and to Samuel in the Temple, 1 Sam. 3. 3. And it is probable that at other times in those first ages God convers'd with his Servants by speaking audibly to them. Secondly, God spake by the Voice of an Angel very frequently, as to Adam, it is likely, presently af∣ter his Fall: for that Angel who guarded Paradise spoke to him without doubt, and told him roundly of the dire effects of his Apostacy, and warn'd him not to approach the flaming Sword, lest he perish immediately. We read that God spake by Angels to Moses, Lot, Abraham, Isaac, Iacob, Daniel, and several others. Or, when God spake by a Wind or Thunder, or some strange Sound and terrible Concu••••ion of the Air, it was thought to be by the ministry of Angels. This was call'd by the Iews Bath Kol, the Daughter of a Voice. It was any Voice heard as descending from Heaven, and directing them in any matter or concern whatsoever. The Iews say that by this Voice the Six Precept•• were given to the Sons of Adam, and the additional one to Noah and his Sons: and by this the Law of Circumcision and the Ten Commandments (which were not written at first) were given to Moses. Many of the Hebrew Doctors assert This Bath Kol to have been the lowest degree of Revela∣tion; and they say this supplied the room of Prophecy, and was frequent after that ceased among the Iews. Thirdly, God spake to his People by the Voice of Pr••∣phe••s, Na••ijim, Messengers dispatched on purpose to de∣clare

his Will. Of these we often read in the Old Testa∣ment, but especially about King David's time, and af∣terwards. For tho Abraham be the first that is call'd by the name of Prophet, Gen. 20. 7. because he was one that was acquainted with God's Will, and was preva∣lent in Prayer, yet now we are speaking of that particu∣lar sort of Prophets who foretold things to come, and denounced the Judgments which were to be executed on Offenders, and were sent forth by God to that pur∣pose very usually, but especially when the Nation of the Iews grew very wicked and Idolatrous. Then these Per∣sons were rais'd up by God to admonish that People, to tell them freely of their Miscarriages, and to declare the displeasure of God against them. And these Envoys of Heaven were sent not only to God's own People, but sometimes to others, as the Ninivites. Thus Revela∣tion was made by Voice: God spake himself, or by others audibly: and this was no uncommon way of divulging and discovering his Will.

Again, God spake, i. e. communicated himself here∣tofore not only by the sense of Hearing, but by that of Seeing. He was pleased to make known his Divine Pleasure by some visible Appearances, which most vigo∣rously struck on that Sense, and gave more evident Tes∣timony of the Will of Heaven. Thus God discovered himself, 1. by Angels Appearing; for tho it was not the Appearing of these Messengers, but their Speaking to per∣sons which gave them the discovery of God's pleasure, yet the former was no mean Confirmation of what was delivered, because those Glorious Spi••••ts could not appear to Mankind unless they were commission'd by God. When he thought fit to send them, then (and not else) they descended from Heaven, and shew'd themselves to Men. 2. Writing was another manner of Visible Reve∣lation. Thus the Law was deliver'd to Moses, and af∣terwards this way of Revelation grew frequent, the Sa∣cred History of Moses, and other Histories and Prophe∣cie

being committed to Writing. Thus the Antient Church before Christ's coming had the Written Word of the Holy Scriptures to inform them. 3. God spake to the Sight by those Representations which in Holy Writ are so usually stiled Visions, for these properly belong to the outward Sense of Seeing: they are either Real Specta∣cles exposed to the eye, as the Burning Bush which Mo∣ses saw, Exod. 3. 2. and the Pillar of a Cloud which went before the Israelites in the day, and the Pillar of Fire which conducted them in the night, Exod. 13. 21. and the Cloud in the Temple, 2 Chron. 5. 13, 14. call'd the Glory of the Lord, 2 Chron. 7. 1, 2. And this Ex∣pression is used in other places of the Old Testament, to signifie that Visible Glory and Majesty whereby he mani∣fested himself to Mankind in those times. Or else Visi∣ons in Holy Scripture are certain Images of things repre∣sented by God to the Eye, as those Strange Appearances and Signs mention'd in the Books of Ieremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel. Whether these things may be said to be real Objects, or whether they be mere Apparitions, we need not (as some) solicitously inquire. If they be Resemblances caused by God, and there be such an Im∣pression made on the Sense of Seeing that the Organ be affected, as if there were such an Object before it, it is sufficient to denominate it Vision. But this is not to be doubted of, that these external Representations and Figures pointed out Real things, either present or to come. From this sort of Manifestation, call'd Vision, the Prophets who were most conversant in this way of Revelation, were stiled Se••rs, 1 Sam. 9. 9, 18. 2 Chron. 35. 15.

Thus I have distinctly spoken of Voices and Visions: but it must be observed also that these two are joyned to∣gether sometimes. This you may see in some of the foregoing Instances; and in others not named, the Re∣velation by Voice was mixed with that by Vision: so in the New Testament Saul saw a Light, and heard a

Voice. But I am confined at present to the Old Testa∣ment, for I speak now only of the variety of Revelations which were before the Gospel-Dicd\sspensation. It is to be observed moreover that sometimes Vision and Voice were accompanied with an Extasy: tho the persons were awake, yet they were cast into a Trance. Lastly, under this head it is remarkable that all the outward and sen∣sible ways of God's revealing himself, especially those that are visible, are call'd by the Jewish Masters the She∣kinah, i. e. the Divine Presence and Majesty, whereby the doth as it were dwell, and is constantly present with his Church (for the word Shakan signifies to inha•••••••• or dwell) whereby he doth gloriously discover himself to his Servants. With reference to this the Apostle saith, to the Israelites pertaineth the Glory, Rom. 9. 4. i. e. the Glorious Presence and Habitation of God with them, not only by Angels, but all those other ways before spoken of, in which he appear'd and manifested himself in the times of the Law. This St. Paul stiles the Glory, because this Visible Appearing of God is so stiled (as you have heard) in the Old Testament, and because the Seventy Interpreters (whose way of speaking this Apostle is wont to imitate) used the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to express the Glorious Presence of the Divine Majesty in any kind of Sensible and External manner.

2. There are Inward as well as Outward Revelations. These are made more immediately to the Soul, as the other were to the Body. First, God spake or reveal'd himself to the Fancies of Men, by Dreams. He thought good to communicate his Will to persons by a power∣ful Influence on their Imaginations whilst they were a∣sleep, as well as by presenting things to their Senses when they were awake. Thus God reveal'd himself to6 1.279 A∣braham,7 1.280 Abimelech,8 1.281 Iacob,9 1.282 Ioseph,* 1.283 Pharaoh,

3 1.284 Solomon,4 1.285 Nebuchadnezzar. In their Dreams their Fan∣cies were impress'd with such and such Representations, they verily thought they beheld this or that Object, as Iacob thought he saw a Ladder that reached from Heaven to Earth. And because these Representations seem to be offer'd to the eye, therefore they are sometimes call'd Vi∣sions in Scripture. I saw a Dream, saith Nebuchadnez∣zar, Dan. 4. 5. And so we read of a Dream of the night Vision, Isai. 29. 7. But if you speak of Visions in the proper sense, then it is certain Visions and Dreams are two distinct Species of Revelation; and so I have made them, having before spoken of Visions strictly so call'd. But this is a thing not consider'd sometimes by Writers on this Subject, and so they confound Visions and Dreams.

Secondly, God speaks to the Soul not only by work∣ing on the Imagination in Sleep, but by immediate In∣spiring the minds of the Prophets when they are awake. This way of revealing his Will to Men is call'd Inspirati∣on, and sometimes Illumination: but there is a gradual difference between these, the former being of a higher degree than the later, and the later being as it were a Preparative to the former. This Inspiration, which is made by an inward Afflatus and Excitation of the Spirit, is signally call'd5 1.286 the Holy Spirit by the Jewish Writers. A man, say they, is said to have the Holy Spirit when being awake, and having the full use of his Senses, he speaks by the Incitement of the Spirit. Thus the Pro∣phets of old spake as they were stirr'd up, by this Inward Afflation and Instinct. The Jewish Doctors think that this degree of Divine Revelation is especially in the Psalms of David, and the Proverbs of Solomon, and the Book of Iob, &c. the Writers of which are termed by

way of Excellency Chetubim Scriptores, by the Hebrews, and their Writings are distinguish'd from other Books of Scripture by the name of Hagiographa. This put Ho∣ly Men upon Pious Discourses, and excellent Strains of Devotion, and rais'd them above their ordinary temper. Yea, All the Holy Penmen of Scripture were moved and actuated by this Divine Influx: By this they dictated and composed those Sacred Writings. This is that de∣gree of Prophecy or Prophetick Inspiration which is call'd the Holy Spirit. Tho you may observe too that all those kinds of Revelation beforemention'd, are stiled in the Jew∣ish Writings Inspiration and the Holy Spirit, and some∣times they are call'd Prophecy, and the Spirit of Prophe∣cy. For Prophecy (Nebuah) is taken either strictly or largely: In the strict acception, according to the Jewish Notion of it, it is when any thing is reveal'd to a per∣son when he is asleep, or in a rapture, or besides himself. And others of them say, that Prophecy properly so call'd, is either in the way of Dreams or Visions. Prophecy in Scripture is taken in a restrained sense, for seeing and fore∣telling things to come: and hence (as well as from what was suggested before) it is probable the Prophets antiently were call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Seers. This also is that which most usually is call'd Prophecy by the Iews. But Prophecy in the largest acception is the general word to comprehend all kinds of Divine Revelation: it is the way whereby all revealed Knowledg and Truth are convey'd to us. Therefore the Schools of the Prophets were those places where young Men were prepar'd for all sorts of Revelation and Inspiration; and out of these Schools ge∣nerally the Prophets were chosen. Education and Im∣provement fitted them for the Prophetick Office, and by these Testimonials they were able to go abroad.

There was a way to know who were True Prophets and who False, and to distinguish one from the other. Indeed when a Prophet foretold things to come to pass hereafter, he could not be convinced of falshood present∣ly,

because his Prophecy must be known to be true or false by the Event of his Prediction, Deut. 18. 21. And yet here was some uncertainty, for the thing he foretold might not come to pass, and yet he might be a True Prophet, for God could do otherwise than the Pro∣phet foretold, Ier. 18. 7, 8. But then the Prediction was conditional, not absolute, or rather it was a Com∣mination. But if any one by the Prophetical Spirit dic∣tated such and such things to be done, it was possible to tell, and that presently, or in a very short time, whe∣ther he was a true Prophet or no. This might be known first from the Qualifications of a true Prophet: for first he must be no way inclined to Idolatry; secondly he must predict nothing against the Law. If he said any thing derogatory to the Law of Moses, the Moral Law chiefly and the Worship of God, he discover'd himself to be a false Prophet; Deut. 18. 20. Deut. 13. 1, 2, 3. Thirdly, some add, that as he was one who said nothing against the Law, so neither must he do any thing against it. It was a Notion of the Iews that the Spirit of Pro∣phecy was not communicated to any but Holy Men. But there is reason to doubt as to this. Besides the Qua∣lifications, a Prophet might be known to be true, when he was back'd by another Prophet who was certainly known to be true, when this Prophet testified of the o∣ther. Further, when God himself testified concerning a Prophet by some manifest Sign, as in 1 Kings 13. Thus they were to judg whether Prophets were counterfeit or no. Add this also, that they were deterred from counter∣feiting the Prophetick Spirit, because by the Law a false Prophet was to be punish'd with Death, Deut. 18. 20. Lastly, The true Prophets might be discern'd and dis∣tinguish'd from the false ones by this, that they were plain and downright in their Predictions, whereas the o∣thers were generally ambiguous and equivocating, as we see in the Example of those false Prophets whom Ahab

consulted, The Lord shall deliver it (say they) into the hands of the King, 1 Kings 22. 6. So we render that place, but the Relative it is not in the Hebrew, and so the words have two senses, either the Lord shall deliver Ramoth Gilead into the hands of the King of Israel, or, the Lord shall deliver thee and thy forces into the hands of the King of Syria. This was frequently imitated after∣wards by1 1.287 the Heathen Oracles, and was of some ad∣vantage; for from the ambiguity of the words mistakes might easily arise, and by that means the credit of the false Prophets was salved. But however this rendred their Predictions uncertain and wavering, whereas those that had the true Prophetick Spirit were sure and fix'd: and thus there could not but be a certainty of Prophecy among the Iews. But at last the Spirit of Prophecy cea∣sed, and (as the Jewish Writers and Christian Fathers agree) ended in Malachi, who was the last Prophet. But this way of Revelation was afterwards restored by Christ, as shall be shew'd afterwards.

To the foremention'd ways of God's communicating his Will and Pleasure, may be added that Impulse whereby persons are stir'd up by God to undertake some extraor∣dinary Enterprize, and to accomplish some very notable Act. Thus2 1.288 Maimonides reckons it among the several kinds of Prophecy, that Moses by a particular intimation from God slew the Egyptian, Exod. 2. 12. So by the same Di∣vine Motion Phineas knew it would be acceptable to God to kill those two notorious Sinners, and he was stir'd up accordingly to do it. By the same Heavenly Impulse Sampson was excited to destroy the Philistines, tho with the loss of his own life. And several other Instances might be produced of this nature in the Old Testament.

Thus you see what were the Ordinary ways of Revelation, what was the frequent and usual manner of God's com∣municating his Will in the several Dispensations before treated of. In the next place I will enumerate the Extra∣ordinary Means of revealing God's Will: As,

1. That way of Revelation whereby God conversed with Moses on the Mount, when he gave him the Law, and whereby he was pleas'd to communicate himself to him at some other times. The Jewish Doctors cry up This for the highest Degree of Revelation that ever was, and some of them talk such strange things of it as are next to Blasphemy. But this we are sure of, that the Sacred Spirit represents this as an Vnusual and Extraordinary Revelation, and such as was peculiar to Moses alone: for it is said, The Lord spake to Moses3 1.289 face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend, Exod. 33. 11. Indeed Iacob testifieth of himself, that he had seen God face to face, Gen. 32. 30. But tho he had seen God so, yet we do not read that he talk'd with him after that manner, which implieth something more. I know Moses tells the peo∣ple of Israel, that God talked with them face to face in the Mount, Deut. 5. 4. But this he means of himself, viz. that after God had spoken to him in that immediate manner, he imparted God's Will to them, but they were not suffer'd to come near the Mount, as we expres∣ly read. Besides, this is part of Moses's peculiar cha∣racter, that there arose not a Prophet since in Israel like un∣to him, whom the Lord knew face to face, Deut. 34. 10. viz. by talking, conversing with him face to face; there∣fore this was a singular Prerogative granted to him, and no other Prophet partook of it, or was to be compared with Moses as to this. But what you read in Num. 12. 6, 7, 8. is yet more full: If there be a Prophet among you, I the Lord will make my self known unto him in a Vision,

and will speak unto him in a Dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all my House (he is a singular person, and I trust him with all my Concerns: therefore I vouchsafe him a greater measure of Revelation than o∣ther Prophets have. I make my Pleasure known to them in Dreams and Visions, the ordinary ways of Divine Discovery, but) with him will I speak4 1.290 mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches: and the Simili∣tude of the Lord shall be behold.

Hence it is evident, that the Gradus Mosaicus was not communicable to any other Prophet, and consequently that there was a vast difference between Moses's Prophe∣sying and that of other Prophets. Moses convers'd im∣mediately with God: that is, in that clear and evident manner which no other Prophets were acquainted with, without any disturbing Impressions on his Imagination, as in the usual Dreams and Visions of Prophets. Or, Moses had not that Awe and Astonishment on him which the rest of the Prophets had. Or, face to face, i. e. friend∣lily (as 'tis explain'd in the place before mention'd; as a man speaketh to his friend) signifieth that he conversed intimately and familiarly with God; he was admitted to the nearest Communion with the Divine Presence and Majesty that ever any mortal Man had. In this he ex∣cell'd all former Prophets, as to This he was Singular and Peculiar, and the way of Discovery made to him was the highest Degree that ever was.

But tho I allow this, that Moses experienc'd a more Immediate and Familiar way of Revelation than any o∣thers, and that this was the most Exalted Degree of In∣spiration, yet I do not see but that we may affirm it was in some of those ways I have before mention'd. As to the Degree it was most Sublime and Transcendent, but yet the way of Conveyance might be the same. It might

be by immediate Voice from God, and by the Voice of Angels, by Visions and Dreams, Sleeping and Waking, by inward Illumination and Divine Afflation: in all these ways, and in the height and transcendency of them, Mo∣ses, it is likely, receiv'd Communications from God. Thus it differs from all other Revelations, tho as to the substance it is the same.

God's calling to Moses out of the Bush, Exod. 3. 4. is counted by5 1.291 Maimonides one of the highest Degrees of Divine Revelation; for none but Moses, saith he, had the honour to hear God speak to him in a Vision, whilst he was awake. But this Learned Iew seems to be sin∣gular here, and therefore I will not reckon this as a dis∣tinct and peculiar way of Divine Manifestation.

2. Another way of Revelation was that of the Oracle in the Tabernacle, or Temple. Exod. 25. 22. I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee, from above the Mercy-Seat, from between the two Cherubims which are upon the Ark of the Testimony, of all things which I will give thee in Commandment unto the Children of Israel. And accordingly in Num. 7. 89. we read that God spake to Moses from the Mercy-Seat, and gave Answer to him when he consulted him: and none else had that honour in his time. But afterwards the High Priests had this privilege conferred upon them. Some of the Vn∣circumcised Doctors tell us prodigious things of this way of Revelation: they talk as seraphically as if they had been the persons that were admitted to that Sacred Ora∣cle. But after all they have said, either we must refer it to some, or all of the ways of Revelation before speci∣fied, or else we must fit still, and say we know not what it was.

3. The Answering by Vrim and Thummim was ano∣ther Extraordinary way of Revelation. By this God

gave Answers in great and weighty Affairs, especially a∣bout the Kingdom, for it may be reckon'd a Politick Ora∣cle: and some have thought (from what they read in 1 Sam. 30. 7, 8.) that Kings as well as the High Priests were the persons to whom the Vrim and Thummim were committed. But I see no ground for this, for this Ora∣cle had its residence in the High Priests Breast-plate, and therefore was given out wholly by him. And as for what is said in the foremention'd place in Samuel, it is not to be understood of David's personal Act, but of what he did by his Authority. But that this great Ora∣cle of the Iews was consulted chiefly in difficult cases of State, may be gather'd from Num. 27. 21. 1 Sam. 23. 9. & 28. 6. & 30. 7. 2 Sam. 2. 1. Tho I fee no rea∣son to appropriate it wholly to Civil Matters, for the High Priests Pectoral had this general Name given it, Co∣shen hamishphat, the Breastplate of judgment, Exod. 28. 15. because by the Vrim and Thummim, which were lodg'd here, Iudgment infallibly pass'd; but we do not find that this Iudgment or Decision was restrain'd to one particular sort of Cases. When this Oracle ceas'd, is not agreed among Writers. According to6 1.292 Ioseph the Iew there was no such thing about two hundred years before our Saviour's time. But some of the Hebrew Doctors say, it had its period in the Prophet Haggai's days. Nay, it was never heard of from the day that the Chil∣dren of Israel were carry'd captive to Babylon, say others of the Iews, who it is probable come nearest to the truth.

As to the nature of the Vrim and Thummim; there have been several Conjectures of Iews and Christians; but the most considerable of late hath been that of the famous Mr. Selden, and some others, who think they were little Images, that were represen∣tations

of Angels, and that they were the same with the Teraphim. But I have subverted the foundation of this opinion, by shewing that the word Teraphim is not of a middle signification in Scripture, but that it is the word to express Idolatry, 1 Sam. 15. 23. And that in all other places it signifies some unlawful Images, Idols, or False Gods. A Noble7 1.293 Critick strikes in with our fa∣mous Antiquary, and would perswade us that Vrim and Teraphim are the same. He hath shew'd a great deal of excellent Reading and Criticism in his undertaking, to maintain the Identity of these two: he hath done great and amazing things in so barren a Subject; his Atchieve∣ments are extraordinary, and like himself: but if I may be so free with this worthy Man, and the rest of those Authors that have gone this way, as to deliver my thoughts impartially concerning the Reasons and Argu∣ments which they have offer'd, truly I must pronounce that some of them are slight and frivolous, and they might as well have asserted that the Vrim and Teraphim are the same because they both end in im. This Learned Writer adds, that both the Vrim and Thummim were of Pagan Extraction; but herein he leaves the Judicious Selden, who held not that the Vrim was borrow'd from the Teraphim, but that this was taken from that, for he saith expresly that the Teraphim are call'd Vrim and Thummim, because they aped the fanctity of these.

But this later Author avers that the Iews imitated he Gentiles in their Teraphim and other Idolatrous Rites and Practices. Tho the Iewish Laws were made in ab∣solute opposition (as hath been said before) to the Cus∣toms of the Idolatrous Nations, yet (notwithstanding this) he asserts that God borrowed this and most of the Mosaick Rites from those Pagan Idolaters. Did God himself openly declare against the Idolatry of the Gentiles,

and yet would he by these Images of Pagan Invention nurse it up? Is it possible for considerate minds to give credit to this? To think that the Iews, who were par∣ticularly commanded not to learn the way of the Heathen, Ier. 10. 12. not to comply with the Customs of the Idolatrous Nations, but to avoid them, and act quite contrary to them; to think that these persons were per∣mitted, nay in a particular manner commanded and en∣joyn'd to use this Superstitious and Magical Rite, and other the like Customs of the Heathens; to think that God, who had so often declared his hatred and abomi∣nation of Idols, and whatever look'd like Idolatry, gave out his Oracles to his own People by a couple of little Pert Waxen Images, and that in complyance with the Talismanical Puppets used by most Pagans, and which were first invented by their Idolatrous Priests, is such a heap of odd and wild Conceits that no unprejudiced and unbyass'd mind can entertain. As for the Thummim, that also is held by the same Author to have been bor∣row'd from the Gentiles. As Vrim was fetch'd from Se∣rapis an Egyptian Idol, so (saith he) Thummim is of the like Original, for it was an Image set with precious Stones which the High Priests of Egypt wore about their necks. Now, because these Pagans were brave and gaw∣dy, and had a rich Saphire and Truth engraven on it hanging at their breasts, therefore God appointed his own High Priest a Thummim, which was such another fine brave thing. Yea, God gave him Bells to dangle and make a noise at his heels, because the Egyptian Priests were hung about after that manner, for which this Author quoteth Alexander ab Alexandre. This in brief is his conjecture about Thummim. And thus the Vrim were Images, and the Thummim was an Image.

Which it seems was the opinion of A. Castre hereto∣fore (tho he hath not the same particular notion concer∣ning these Images with this present Writer) but hear

how a8 1.294 Learn'd and Sober Man of his own Commu∣nion censures him for it; As this is a new opinion, so it is very improbable, because such a thing as this would have been of dangerous consequence among that people who were so inclined to Idolatry. If they had seen Images, or heard them speak, and deliver Oracles, they would there∣by have been encourag'd and confirm'd in their Idola∣trous Service, i. e. worshipping of Images. And truly, if I may speak freely, this assertion that God's most Holy Oracle, whereby he deliver'd his Will to the Hebrew people, was managed altogether by Images, gives too much encouragement to the Image-Worship maintain'd and practis'd by some of the Church of Rome. Accor∣dingly you will find that9 1.295 One who was a well-willer to the Roman Cause and Interest, highly applauds these Notions, and borrows several pages together from Doctor Spencer as sutable to his purpose. He furnish'd himself with materials for his Pamphlet about the notion of Ido∣latry, from this Writer's conceptions of it.

But that which is the greatest reproach to these Images is, that they were borrow'd from the Idolatrous Pagans, which is the thing this Reverend Gentleman asserts and defends. This makes them unworthy of God and his Worship, and not fit to be used by the People of God. This Opinion makes God to imitate the Pagan in their Customs and usages. But he thinks he salves the absur∣dity and impiety of this, by adding, that God did this, by reason of the bardness of the Jews hearts. He imputes the use of this Vrim or Teraphim to the morosity of that people, who were to be pleas'd by all means, and there∣fore GOd indulged them in these Heathen Superstitions. But who can think this to be a satisfactory account of the matter? It is as much as to say, God, to comply with

the vain humour of this people, gave them these Little Images, these Pratling Puppets to dance and dandle. The Iewish Nation being Children, must have these Bau∣bles to play with. The froward Israelites cried for the Pagan Gewgaws, therefore God let them have them, that they might Play and Worship at the same time. We must hold that these Pretty Idols wrap'd up in a folded piece of cloth of a span long, were the Famous, Celebrated, and Sacred Vrim of the Iews: these Ludicrous Images were the Holy Oracles whereby God spake to his people on the most serious and eminent occasions: In short, the Vrim were the very same with the Teraphim, which were the Heathens Penates, the Pagans Houshold-Gods, or rather (to speak more plainly) they were the Bodies of those Gods, or (to speak yet more plainly) of the Infernal Ghosts, who came and informed these little Carcases af∣ter they were prepared under a certain Constellation: then and not before, they were a Trap to catch Damons, as Mr. Mede pleasantly speaks. These were the Teraphim, as all the Learned know, and consequently they were the Vrim: which if any man can believe, 'tis next to the Faith of Miracles, in my apprehension. If we can per∣swade our selves that the Holy God of Israel was an ex∣act Imitator of the Pagans Magical Feats, and Diaboli∣cal Conjurations, we may then swallow any thing, be it never so incredible and impossible. What is erroneous and absurd, yea what is prophane and blasphemous if this be not, viz. that God's Worship was borrow'd by God himself from the Idolatrous Gentiles?

I have in another place offer'd my particular Sentiment concerning these Vrim and Thummim (so much contro∣verted by the Learned) the Sum of which is this, that they were no other than these two Hebrew words VRIM and THVMMIM written or engraven, and put into the High Priest's Breast-plate. To which purpose it is observable that in Exod. 39. 8, &c. where the High Priests Garments are rehears'd, and are said to be made,

the Vrim and Thummim are not mention'd at all, because these were not made of materials of Linen, Gold, &c. as the Garments were, but were only bare words written or engraved, and deposited in the hollow of the Breast-Plate, which was a folded or doubled Cloth, and was capable of holding those written Words: wherefore they are bid to put them in it, not upon it, for upon it were the twelve Precious Stones. I have shew'd the probabili∣ty of this Opinion from several material Considerations, as well as from the manner of Expression us'd in Exod. 28. 30. Thou shalt put, or (according to the Hebrew) thou shalt give in the Breast-plate the Vrim and Thummim. I have shew'd that giving is apply'd in several places of Scripture to writing: and I will further confirm it by one Instance more, viz. in Ezek. 9. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, give i. e. write a mark on the Foreheads, &c. for it is spoken to him who had the Writer's Inkhorn, ver. 2, 3. Thus gi∣ving and writing are the same. And so in our own way of speaking there is something like it, for to render or give and to ascribe are sometimes synonimous. These written Words (which were of mighty Importance and Significancy) were put into the Rationale, or rather, the Duplicature contain'd in it, and were made use of by the High Priest when Answers were to be given. Those Words may signifie to us the nature of this kind of Ora∣cle, viz. that by consulting it they should be illuminated (that is the import of Vrim) they should have a clear discovery of what they ask'd and enquired after, and they should have not only a Distinct, but a Full and Perfect Answer (that is implied in Thummim) to their De∣mands.

If it be Objected (as I find it is) that the Hebrew •• being set before Vrim and Thummim, and the particle the being placed before them in our English Translation, ar∣gue the Vrim and Thummim to be things, and not bare words: I answer, it is true that the Hebrew ha which is sometimes a Praepositive Article before Nouns, and is

rendred the, is (like the Greek Articles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 before some words) very significant and emphatical, having the force of a Demonstrative: but at other times you will find that it is of no significancy at all, but is a mere Expletive. So that we cannot infer with any certainty that ha or the being prefix'd to Vrim and Thummim have any Emphasis, or argue them to be Things, and not Words. Again, you may observe that tho it be haurim in Exod. 28. 30. and is translated the Vrim, yet in Num. 27. 21. tho there be the Article ha in the Original, yet in our English Translation it is plain Vrim. And moreover, take notice that it is barely Vrim, Deut. 33. 8. 1 Sam. 28. 6. both in the Hebrew and in our Tran∣slation. Whence still you may infer that there is no stress to be laid on either the Hebrew ha or the English the when they are prefix'd to Vrim and Thummim, there is nothing Emphatick in it. Nay, that the is no note of a thing is clear from Hag. 2. 6. (not to mention any o∣ther place) where the Hebrew ha and the English the are set before [word] and you'l find almost a hun∣dred times in your English Bible the word, but I suppose you will not thence gather that a word is a thing, taking this latter in the strictest sense. This is the best and plainest account I can give of the Vrim and Thummim, on which I should further have enlarged if I had not pre∣vented my self by a Particular Essay on this subject. I never met with any one that had any thing considerable to object against this Notion, but on the contrary I find that one or two Writers of good Note have shew'd themselves much inclin'd to embrace it. I am not concern'd to sa∣tisfie those who ask, how God answer'd by these Words or Letters. It is hard to resolve this Question, but such a Conjecture as this may be probable, that the High Priest was particularly taught by God to understand this Secret, from some difference which he observ'd in the Letters made by God's own disposal. If the Iewish Writers thought such a thing as this was Reasonable and

Accountable when they asserted the Responses to be made by the Precious Stones, I do not see why we may not with greater reason make use of the same Solution here. But this we are certain of, that the Divine Re∣sponses were given by and from these Vrim and Thum∣mim, and we are sure that they were part of the celebrated Shekinah, the Divine Presence, the Visible and Glorious Appearance of God: for by these in an extraordinary manner (which none is able to relate) he reveal'd his Will to the High Priests, and they imparted it to those who came to inquire of this Oracle.

And so I have let you see what were the Various Reve∣lations, both Ordinary and Extraordinary, under the se∣veral Dispensations we have been speaking of. The Mosaick Occonomy especially had the advantage of all these: the Iewish People were most signally honoured with all these sorts of Revelations; Vnto them were com∣mitted the Oracles of God, Rom. 3. 2. The High Priest's Pectoral is call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because Responses in some dif∣ficult cases were Spoken and Reveal'd thereby: and so the Revelations of God's Will by that way are call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the Apostle here, but that is not all, for this is to be look'd upon as a large word, to signifie all the Va∣rious Discoveries vouchsafed by God, the Divers man∣ners of communicating his Pleasure to Mankind. He spoke 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

It might be expected now that I should pass to the Evangelical Dispensation: but I having said under the Abrahamick Occonomy that there was then a palpable Distinction made between God's Servants and Worship∣pers, and those that worship'd false Gods; and after∣wards in the Mosaick Dispensation there being a more Visible Distinction made, it is necessary here to add some∣thing to qualifie what was there said, and to acquaint you with the whole Account of God's Transactions in that affair: it is proper here to say something of God's dealing with other Nations, which makes a Distinct O••conomy.

CHAP. X.

The Gentile Oeconomy. Others besides those of the Family of Abraham were of the Church. Some of these were in Palestine. An enumera∣tion of the several Opinions concerning Mel∣chisedech. He was a Canaanitish King and Priest. Job's Countrey. His Character. His Friends. Several other Pious and Reli∣gious Gentiles in other Countreys. Hebrew Prophets sent to the people of other Nations. Malachi speaks of True Worshippers among the Gentiles. The Proselytes of the Gate. The Proselytes of Righteousness. Tho the Nations were generally forsaken of God because of their Idolatry, yet some among them professed and wor∣shipped the True God. Those places of Scrip∣ture in the Old and New Testament which set forth the Peculiar Privileges of the Jewish People are not inconsistent with this. No Na∣tions were debarr'd and excluded from God's Grace and Favour.

THerefore in the next place I proceed to the Gentile O••conomy: for so I may call it, tho it lies not all together, as the other Dispensations do, but is dispers'd both through the Abrahamick and Mosaick O••conomi••s. You must know then that tho the Church of God, or the Faithful, were separated from the greater part of the World which were Infidels, and commonly call'd in Scripture the Nations, (for tho sometimes, but very rarely, this word be apply'd to Iews as well as Heathens in the Old and New Testament, yet generally G••jim

gentes is the word in the Old Testament proper to those that believe not in the true God, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the New Testament expresses the same. Thence is the common Antithesis in the New Testament of Iew and Greek or Gentile: and this was the perfect dichotomy of all Man∣kind at that time) and tho the Church were those of the stock of Abraham who retain'd the true Worship of God, and more especially and eminently the Iews were call'd the Church and peculiar People of God; and the Nations were those that invented new Gods, and worshipped them, and lived in all sorts of Wickedness and Lewdness (as Babylon, Sodom, Egypt, and other places) yet the Seat of the Church was not so tied to Abraham's family, or afterwards to the Iews, that Salvation was confined to that People, or that there were no other persons pro∣fessing Godliness besides them. Altho God in a peculiar way reveal'd himself to Abraham and his Family, and that by Covenant, yet others likewise were favoured by God, and included in that Covenant. Tho God calls himself the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, Exod. 3. 6. that is, he was the God of those Patriarchs and of their Seed in a peculiar manner, as having actually made a Covenant with them, and pro∣mis'd that the Blessed Seed, the Messia••, should arise thence; yet in a larger and extensive sense God was the God of other People besides. For as all were not Good that were in Abraham's Family or of his Posterity (there were Ismael and Esau, Incestuous Reuben, the Bloody Simeon and Levi; and both in the Wilderness and in Ca∣naan there were Murmurers, Blasphemers, Idolaters, and persons every way defiled) so all were not Bad or shut out from Grace and the Covenant of Mercy that were not of the Family or Race of Abraham. There was Shem, Noah's First-born, who lived in Palestine when Abraham came thither out of Babylon, and it is highly probable that he was a Good Man and a Religious Worshipper. Nor must Iaphet be supposed to have re∣volted

form God: this was one of the Sons of the Bles∣sing, and it is likely was a godly Person. Abimelech, one of the Kings of Canaan (it is probable of the Southern part of it, as Melchisedech, of whom I shall speak•• anon, was King of the Northern parts) was at that time one that feared the true God, and thereby was taught to ab∣stain form Abraham's Wife, Gen. 20. 3, 4. And in∣deed form several passages in this Chapter it appears that this King was a very Religious and conscientious Man, that he had the knowledg of the true God, and worship'd him. Abraham's asking God to spare Sodom if there were fifty Righteous Men in it, implies that he thought there were so many there: and consequently other Cities of that bigness had at least that number of Righteous Persons: and proportionably in greater places he thought there were more that might be saved. Now it is not probable that he was wholly mistaken, and consequently there were Religious Persons besides those of Abraham's Seed even in the Cities of Palestine. Rahab was a Ca∣naanite, but yet a Religious Faithful Woman, one that acknowledg'd and worship'd the God of Israel, and ac∣cordingly is commended for her Faith, Heb. 11. 31. and questionless others there were in that Countrey (tho they are not particularly mention'd) who feared God.

I will instance in one very Great and Eminent Person who was a Canaanite, viz. M••lchisedech. I know it is disputed who he was: 1. Some have thought that he was an Angel in the Form of a Man, as St.9 1.296 Augustin tells us. This was the fancy of Origen, as we may gather from 1 1.297 one of his Homilies. 2. Others, as Hierax and the Hieracites (a sort of Hereticks in the Third Century named from him) hold that Melchisedech was the Di∣vine

Power of God, or (more plainly) the Person of the Holy Ghost in shape of a Man, as2 1.298 Epiphanius re∣ports. 3. Others (as the same3 1.299 Father relates) said he was the Son of God Incarnate. And this Opinion is imbraced by a modern4 1.300 Writer, who would perswade us that Melchisedech and Christ are the same. But these are false and groundless surmises, and have no bottom to support them. As to the last of them, it is incredible that the Type and Antitype should be the same: for this is the case here, Melchisedech was a Representative of our Saviour, according to that of the Apostle, Heb. 6. 20. Iesus was a Priest after the Order of Melchisedech. Which he explains in Chap. 7. ver. 15. After the simi∣litude of Melchisedech there ariseth another Priest: as much as to say, Melchisedech and Christ were like one another in several things, and thereupon one was de∣sign'd to be a fit Type of the other. But it is unreaso∣nable and absurd to say that a Person is like himself, there∣fore we cannot rationally imagine that Christ, who (as St. Paul saith) was after the similitude of Melchisedech, was the same with him. This cannot be admitted by any considerate Man. And this also is to be remembred, that the Apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews (where he particularly treateth of Melchisedech) would certainly have told us this if it had been so.

St.5 1.301 Ierom is of the Opinion that Melchisedech and Shem the Son of N••ah were the same Person, and he saith it was the general Tradition of the Hebrews. But this is not the first time that he as well as other Chri∣stians have been deceived by Iews. I grant that the Ie∣rusalem Targum (on the Text that speaks of Melchi∣sedech)

asserts him to be Shem, and I deny not that Io∣nathan the Author of this Targum lived before Christ's coming. It was then the Antient perswasion of the Iewish Doctors, and therefore I cannot excuse Iacobus Capellus, who saith it was but a late Device and Fiction of the Iews. If he had said it was an old Fiction of the Rabbies, he had spoken Truth, for it is w••ll known to the Learned, that these Men were given to Forgery form the beginning, and that their Writings abound with mere Inventions of their own: and this among the rest may be one Instance of their Abilities that way. Again, it was not universally receiv'd by the Iews that Shem and Melchisedech were the same, for both Iosephus and Phil•• (two of the most Learned and Judicious Men of that Na∣tion) think otherwise. Further, you will be perswaded of this if you consider the several Arguments which Pe∣reti•••• uses to prove that M••lchisedech was not Shem▪ and if you weigh the seven Reasons produced by6 1.302 Bochare to confirm the same. Or, without consulting of these, you may be convinced by that one single Text of the Author to the Hebrews, Chap. 7. ver. 3. where you are told that this Melchisedech was without father, with∣out mother, without descent; i. e. whereas Moses in his Writings hath told the Genealogie and Ped••gree of all other Pious Worthies mentioned by him, he saith no∣thing at all of this Person's Birth or Stock. Whence you may certainly gather that this Person was not Shem, because we know his Genealogy: his Father and Mother and Descent are expresly recorded. Moreover, Melchise∣••ch was not Shem, for Canaan, where he was King, sell to Cham, not to Shem, as all Historians assert. This may suffice to confute those Iews and Christians who think 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 were the ••ame. * 1.303

Nor, 5ly, was this Melchisedech (as Monsieur I••∣rieu fancies) the other Son of Noah, viz. Cham: for who can upon deliberate thoughts believe that this cur∣sed Person was the Priest of the most High God, from whom Abraham so joyfully receiv'd the Priestly Bene∣diction that he return'd it with the payment of his Tithes? and much less can we believe that one of so ill a character as Cham was the Type of the Blessed Iesus.

6ly, There are some Arabian Writers, as Elmacine and Patricides quoted by H••ttinger, who held that Melchise∣dech was the Son of Ph••leg, but this is exploded for a Fiction.

7ly. Some of the Jews of old (as we are inform'd by that Antient Writer often mention'd on the present Ac∣count) had a Conceit, that this was one that was the Off∣spring of a Harlet, and therefore he is said to be with•••••• father and without mother, i. e. his Parents were so infa∣mous that they were unworthy to be named in Scrip∣ture. But such stuff as this is not worth mentioning.

In the last place therefore, that which is unquestiona∣nably true (because attested by Sacred History) is, that this Melchisedech was really a King and a Priest in the Land of Canaan. It is expresly said that he was King of Sa∣lem, Gen. 14. 18. that is, he was Ruler of that part of Canaan which was afterward called Ierusalem, or else (as some7 1.304 Learned Men have thought) of that place on this side of Iordan, and near to Sodom, which had the name of Salem, perhaps the same with Salim, Joh. 3. 23. The Learned Iewish8 1.305 Historian plainly tells us, that this Melchisedech was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Potentate of the people of Canaan. And with him agree the Chri∣stian Fathers: he was not only a Prince among the Ca∣naanites,

but he was of their Stock, and particularly of the Sidonians, saith9 1.306 Epiphanins. So* 1.307 Theodoret de∣livers it as a thing unquestionable, that as he was a King in Palestine; so he was of the Race of that Gentile Peo∣ple. He was moreover a Priest of the most High God, i. e. of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, the only True God, Gen. 14. 18. And being such, it is not to be question'd that (in dis∣charge of his Sacred Office) he taught the people to wor∣ship and serve God aright. So that if we consider this Person not only as a King but as a Priest, we must grant that he had some influence on the place where he exerci∣sed these Offices, and consequently he being a Good and Holy Man did by his Discipline and Example make others so. Some of his People fear'd God, as well as honour'd him: and thus there might be a considerable number of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that were Religious and Virtuous at that time, and were true Worshippers of the Divine Majesty.

But not only in Palestine but Arabia and the adjacent parts, there were those that feared God, and were accep∣ted of him. Many of the Race of Abraham's Children not by Sarah, but by Haga••, or by his second Wife Keturah, were Heirs of the Covenant made with Abra∣ham. The Children of Ismael were circumcised, and some of them may be thought to have attain'd to the Spi∣ritual Circumcision. 〈◊〉〈◊〉, Moses's Father-in-Law, was a Religious Man tho he was a Kenite by Nation, i. e. an Ara••ian, and tho he dwelt in Midian, an Heathen Countrey. He exercised his Priestly Function here, and offer'd Sacrifice to the God of Israel, Exod. 18. 12. And we cannot but think that those of that Countrey that join'd in Sacrifice and Worship with him, had the knowledg of the same True God. If we may give cre∣dit

to the Hebrew Doctors, whom Mr.* 1.308 Selden quotes, Iethr•• is expresly call'd a Pr••selyte in the G••mara, and consequently he was a Worshipper of the True God. And such might some others of that part of Arabia be: it is likely they were Proselytes to the true Religion. We may think as favourably of some of the Sabaans, Inhabi∣tants of part of Arabia the Desart, of the Posterity of Keturah. Job without doubt was a Gentile, and for that reason Ioseph the Iew reckons not his Book in the Canon of Scripture, because it belongs not to the Iewish Nation, whose Antiquities he was writing. And per∣haps for that reason his Book is placed in the Bible after all the Iewish History. But there is some dispute whether he was an Arabian (properly so called) or an Ed••∣mite. That he was the former, is the more general be∣lief; but some think he was the same with Io••a•• King of the Idumeans, of the Race of Es••u, Gen. 36. 34. And some have thought he was that Iob who was the Son of Issachar, Gen. 46. 13. and who was also called Iashab, 1 Chron. 7. 1. But there is little or no ground for this. His Countrey Vz. was so call'd, say some, from Vz. Nahor's First-born by Milcah, Gen. 22. 21. O∣thers think it had its name from Vz. of the Family of E••∣sau, Gen. 36. 28. 1. Chron. 1. 42. Others say from Vz, of the House of Aram, a Son of Shem, Gen. 10. 23. As to the situation of the place, Sir W. Raleigh is posi∣tive that it lay between Palestine and Coel•• syria, which he gathers from Ier. 25. 20. where those of the Land of Vz. are reckon'd among the Borderers on Iudaa. So * 1.309 St. Ierom of old placed Vz in the confines of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Arabia, and thence it is usually said to be in Ar••∣bia.

I will not now enter into controversie about 〈◊〉〈◊〉

Countrey, because 'tis the same to my present purpose whether he was an Arabian or an Idumean. If he was either of them, it is certain he was a Gentile; and yet (which is the thing we are now concen'd in) he was a Holy Man and a Right Worshipper. His Character is briefly given him by him who wrote the Book, He was (saith he) perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil, Chap. 1. ver. 1. And God himself gave him this high Encomium, There was none like him, (i. e. for Goodness) in the earth, ver. 8. Whence some would gather that he lived not in the time of any of the Holy Patriarchs, or of Moses, for then it could not be said, that he had not his fellow in the earth. But this Inference is of no weight, because it is most proba∣ble that this is spoken of that particular Countrey where∣in Iob lived, as the Earth is sometimes taken in that re∣strained sense in Scripture. So that the meaning is, there was no man like him in the Land of Uz, for the Hebrew word, Eretz, is the same in both places. He was the most eminent Saint in that Region of the World. That which we observe at present is, that he was so, tho he was no Israelite, tho he was not of the Holy Seed. Not∣withstanding this, he was a Worshipper of the True God, and a Righteous Person. In Chap. 31. you may hear him making a solemn Protestation of his Integrity as to many grand things of Religion, and particularly his abhorrence of Idolatry, ver. 26. Indeed the greatest part of the Book is a Testimony of his singular Faith, Pa∣tience, and Piety. Whereupon St. Augustine saith thus of him,3 1.310

I doubt not but it was particularly order'd by Divine Providence that we should learn from this

one Person, that even amongst other Nations there might be those who lived according to God, and plea∣sed him, and belonged to the Spiritual Ierusalem.

Iob's Friends likewise may be reckoned among the Gentiles, for Eliphaz the Temanite was of Esau's lineage, Gen. 36. 11. and Bildad the Shuite was of the posterity of Shuah the Son of Abraham by Keturah, Gen. 25. 2. and Elihu the Buzite was of Buz the Son of Nahor, Gen. 22. 21. As Iob sacrificed for his Sons, (Chap. 1. ver. 5.) so Eliphaz did for himself and his two friends (Iob 42. 8) to appease God's Wrath: and all of them shew'd themselves Religious and Pious per∣sons. For tho they were faulty as to their misrepresen∣tation of Iob sometimes, yet they were in their designs upright, and intended only to justifie God, and to assert his Providence, and to check Sin and Wickedness where they thought they espi'd them. And it is not unreaso∣nable to think that Iob and his Companions, who were Persons of such eminent Goodness, and moreover were Rich and Wealthy Men, and of great Authority in the Land of Vz (for as Iob himself was a Great Man, a kind of King in that Countrey, so his three friends were Men of Power and Eminency, and are call'd Kings by the Author of the Book of Tobit) used their Wealth and Authority for the promoting of Religion among the In∣habitants of that place: and so it is probable that there were several that feared God there, and consequently that the Church was not confined to one Nation, but that God revealed himself in a saving manner to other Countreys.

Of this we have further proof, for as there were these Religious People in Canaan, and Arabia or Idumea, so in other places some of those that were Vncircumcised were acquainted with the True Religion. Abraham's Brother Nahor and his Family, tho they dwelt in Mes••∣potamia (an Heathenish Countrey, and which Abraham left for that reason) were not strangers to the True God

and his Worship (tho they mix'd it with some Super∣stition) thus in Gen. 24. 31, 50. the Language of La¦ba•• and Bethuel shews that they had a good Sense of Religion, and knew and worship'd Ieh••vah. If we pass to Egypt, we shall find there that the Midwives that were Natives of that Countrey (for such they are deservedly thought to be, by the Learned Iewish Histo∣rian and Antiquary; and tho they are call'd Hebrew Midwives, ver. 15. yet the Reason of that Denominati∣on was because (as it is explain'd in the next verse) they did the Office of Midwives to the Hebrew Women: and from several circumstances in that part of the Sacred History we may gather that they were of the Egyptian Nation and not Hebrews) feared God, Exod. 1. 17. and gave a remarkable Testimony of it, and accordingly were rewarded by God for it, ver. 21. Hagar, who was originally an Egyptian, was honoured with Divine Ap∣paritions, and favoured by God in a particular manner, Gen. 16. 10, 11, 13.

And afterwards, when the Iewish Nation and Church were set up by God, other persons and people were not excluded from his Grace and Favour, Ruth was a Mo∣••bite, of the Race of the Daughters of Lot, but was converted to the Belief of the True God, and her Virtue and Piety were so signal, that the Holy Spirit hath recor∣ded them in an intire Book. Our Saviour takes notice that the Prophet Elias was sent to the Widow of Sarep••a, who was a Gentile, a Sidonian (Luke 4. 26) but shew'd her self a very Good Religious Woman, and be∣lieved in the God of the Patriarchs. Naaman the Syri∣an was a Proselyte, he sacrificed to the God of Israel a∣lone, and carried Earth with him out of Iudea to build an Altar, a Kings 5. 15, 17. and without doubt he pro∣pagated the true Religion and Knowledg of God in his own Countrey. Ebedmelech, an Ethiopian, Chamber∣lain or some such like Great Officer to King Zedekiah, was a Patron of the Prophet Ieremiah, and a Man of sin∣gular

Zeal and Piety, and was therefore eminently fa∣vour'd of God, Ier. 38. 7. & 39. 16. It is not im∣probable that Hiram King of Tyre was a Prosolyte, 1 Kings 5. 7. And such we have reason to think the Queen of Sheba was, 1 Kings 10. 9. Nebuchadnezzar was of this sort, and became a Convert, as may be part∣ly collected from Dan. 3. 28, 29. Dan. 4. 34, &c. And it may be Cyrus (who is stiled by God his Anoint∣ed, Isai. 45. 1.) may be reckon'd in this number. But tho there may be some doubt as to these latter, yet it is certain that the rest, and several others that might be named in Gentile Countreys, were Proselytes to the true Faith, In prosecution of which Subject it may be fur∣ther observ'd that God sent Hebrew Prophets to the Peo∣ple of other Nations: Isaiah, Ieremiah, and Ezekiest, prophesied almost to all Nations; Obadiah to the Idu∣means, and Ionas was dispatch'd to the people of Nini∣ve the Metropolis of Assyria, who believ'd and repented at Ionas's Preaching. This shews that God was kind to Them as well as to the Iews, and that they had the True God and his Will in some measure discover'd to them before: otherwise they would not have been so capable of understanding the Divine Message when it came to them, and of behaving themselves sutably to it. For it is not to be question'd that the Ninivites Repentance was true, it proceeding (as some of the Antients of the Christian Church have observ'd) from a true Faith, Ion. 2. 5. Mat. 12. 41. Their Fasting and Humiliati∣on were so eminent, that the Abyssine Church keeps year∣ly a Fast of threeday in remembrance of it. And I find it is the Comfortable Note of Rabbi Kimchi, question∣ing, why the Book of Ionas was rank'd among the Holy Scriptures, it making no mention of Israel, as all other Prophets do, but being wholly directed against the Ni∣nivites, who were Heathens and Strangers to the Com∣monwealth of Israel, This Book, saith he, was written to shew that God is merciful to those that repent, of what

Nation soever they be. This Example makes it evident that the Gentiles were not wholly rejected, altho as to the greatest part they were, but that many of them were accepted of God.

Yea, it seemeth to be plain from Mal. 1. 11. that the Getiles worshipp'd God no less than the Iews. The words are in the present time in the Original. and there∣fore ought to be so meant, that some of the Gentiles in those days had the true Worship of God among them, in one part or other of the whole World he was Adored and Served. The History of the Iewish Nation, and of God's care of them, was the thing chiefly designed in the Old Testament; and therefore it cannot be expected that it should treat of other Nations, and give a particu∣lar account of what was done there. But it makes mention (as you have heard) of some Holy Persons a∣mong them, and without doubt there were many more, tho not spoken of. The Gentiles were not deserted of God, but taken notice of by him, and encouraged. The Visible Church did not altogether consist of Abraham's Family and Kindred; but many others that were not of that Stock were true Members of it. Especially among the neighbouring Nations several were converted to God by the Preaching of the Israelitish Prophets, and in part receiv'd the Iewish Religion, and by the Iews were call'd Proselytes. These properly belong to the Gentile Dis∣pensation, because they were first Gentiles, but converted from their Gentilism to the Knowledg and Worship of the True God. These Proselytes or Converts were of two sorts:

1. The Proselytes of the Gate, as the Iews stiled them (because they lived within the Gates of Isreal, and they held free Commerce and Trade within their Houses, the same with the Strangers within their Gates, Exod. 20. 10. Deat. 14. 21.) They were those Heathens that a∣bandoned their Pagan Superstition and Idolatry, and re∣ceiv'd the True Faith, and acknowledg'd the True God,

but were left to their liberty as to Circumcision. There∣fore this Rank of Proselytes remain'd Uncircumcised, nei∣ther did they observe the other Mosaick Laws and Rites, but were only tied to the keeping of the Seven Precepts, supposed to be given to Noab's Sons, as Maimonides and other Learned Writers among the Iews inform us. These, tho they were no Idolaters, yet because they were Un∣circumcised, were not permitted to worship in the same Court of the Temple with the Iews, but in a distinct Place by themselves, therefore call'd the Court of the Gen∣tiles: and tho they went to the Iewish Synagogues, yet they had a distinct Apartment there. There were many of these Proselytes among the Iews every where in their Cities. Of these you read in the New Testament, where they are call'd4 1.311 Devout, or Pious, or Religious Men, or5 1.312 Worshippers, for the Greek words signifie any of these. I conceive the Roman Centurion of Capernaum, who built the Jews a Synagogue (Luke 7. 5.) was one of these. Cornelius, a Captain of the Italian Band, Acts 10. 2. was another Proselyte of this sort, i. e. a Gen∣tile Worshipper of the True God, but not Circumcised, or counted a Member of the Church of the Iews. And such a one, it is likely, was the Ethiopian Eunuch men∣tioned in Acts 8. 27. who came to Jerusalem to worship. And such was Lydia of Thyatira, who worshipped God, Acts 16. 14. And hither may be referr'd those devout men out of every Nation under Heaven, Acts 2. 5. and th••se that feared God, Acts 13. 16, 26. These were Proselytes from among the Gentiles. And these, it is likely, are meant by the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Acts 9. 29. & 11. 10. for tho this be the name for the Grecizing Iews who read the Scriptures in the Septuagint's Version, and pray'd and did other Religious Offices in Greek, whereas others per∣form'd

them in Hebrew, yet here by Heltemists we are to understand those that were converted to the Jewish Re∣ligion from Gentilism. But tho they had renounced the Heathen Worship, yet they had not receiv'd all the Jewish Ceremonies and Laws.

2. There were another sort of Pr••selytes call'd the Pr••selytes of Right••eousness, or of the Covenant. These were of a far higher degree than the former, for they were Gentiles converted wholly to Iudaism, and were initi∣ated into the Jewish Church by Baptism and Circumci∣sion, and were tied to keep all the Mosaick Law, and worshipp'd in the same Court of the Temple with the Natural Jews, and so became every way Iews unless in respect of their Birth and Nation. These in the New Testament are simply and absolutely call'd Proselytes.

Thus Persons of other Nations besides that of the Jews imbraced the True Religion and Worship, and were accepted of God, and obtain'd his favour. Here then is the Gentile Oeconomy. Not but that the Nati∣ons were generally sorsaken of God, and given up to Idolatry and all manner of Wickedness and Prophaneness, which the Apostle took notice of when he said,6 1.313 God in times past suffer'd all Nations to walk in their own ways; All Nations, i. e. all those Kingdoms which were erec∣ted after the Flood, viz. the Assyrian or Babylonian Mo∣narchy, which began soon after the Flood under Nimr••d the Son of Cush: the Sicyonian Kingdom, and the Old Germans who began at the same time with the Assyrian Monarchy: next the Egyptian Empire under Cham, and his Successor Misraim or Osiria. About the same time be∣gan the Argives Kingdom, under Inachus their first King. Then the Kingdoms of Bactria and Iudia: another Gre∣cian Kingdom, viz. the Athenian, about the middle of the Chaldean Empire: then the Lacedemonian or Spartan Dinasty; the Kingdom of Italy, the Lydian, Corinthi∣an

Tyrian, Maced••nian Dynasties, besides the Persian, whose King upon the expiring of the Ass••rian Empire became Head of the Second Monarchy, which is the boun∣dary of the Sacred History of the Old Testament. These were all left by God to themselves, and Idolatry pre∣vail'd among them all: they worshipp'd the Sun, Moon and Stars, yea all kinds of Beasts tho never so base and contemptible: Nay, Worshipping of Devils was a common practice with them. Thus God suffer'd the greatest part of the World to walk in their own ways un∣til the Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: Thus they were (as the Apostle speaks of the Gentiles) without God in the World, till he came into it. But yet even then, when they were addicted to Idolatry (which is also to be observed in this Oeconomy of the Nations) God left not himself without witness, Acts 14. 17. He led them to the knowledg of himself by the Book of Na∣ture: they had sufficient light of God and Religion, i. e. to teach them some general Duties of Virtue and Good∣ness, and to instruct them in the Nature and Attributes of God, according to that of the Apostle, That which may be known of God was manifest in them: for God shew'd it unto them, Rom. 1. 19. But (as the Apostle there adds) they held the Truth in unrighteousness, and when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, but changed the Glory of the incorruptible God into an Image made like to corruptible Man, and to Birds, and fourfoot∣ed Beasts, and creeping things: and were filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, full of envy, murder, and all manner of Vice and Villany.

But tho it was thus with the Gentiles generally, yet it was not so with them All: there were many that abandon'd Idolatry, and profess'd the only True God. There were excellent Persons even among the Heathens, who were eminent for Grace and Holiness, as the Exam∣ples before mention'd testifie. There was a kind of a

Church out of the Church. Many of the Gentiles had the knowledg of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and of his Covenant with Mankind: for a great part of the Covenant consisted in the Moral Law, which was solemnly proclaim'd on Mount Sinai, and was the principal part of the Mosaick Religion, but appertain'd to all Men: for being the Law of Nature, it had respect to the whole Race of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, it concern'd every Person of what Nation or Countrey so∣ever. And it might be remark'd to this purpose, that at the promulgation of this Law, there were present not only Israelites but Strangers and Gentiles, Exod. 12. 38. Num. 11. 4. Deut. 29. 11. This intima∣ted that the Church was not shut up within the Iewish Nation: the Covenant of Grace extended farther than Iudea. And thus we see this Dispensation is a Dispen∣sation of Grace: Not only as the whole Gentile World was a sharer in the common Favours and Blessings of Hea∣ven▪ but as some of them were actual partakers of the pe∣culiar and saving Grace of God, upon their owning the God of Israel, and turning unto him. Thus God ex∣cluded no sort of People from the participation of his Favour: But that of St. Peter was verified, God is no re∣spector of Persons, but in every Nation he that seareth God and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Righteousness, is accepted with him. Acts 10. 34, 35.

And what I have said is not inconsistent with those pla∣ces of Holy scripture which speak of the Iews as of a pe∣culiar People, and which exast them above all other Na∣tions in the World. What Nation (saith7 1.314 Moses) is there so great, who hath God so nigh to them, as the Lord our God in all things that we call upon him for? As if he had said, Other Nations indeed are great, yea grea∣ter as to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 than the Iews; in this they out do us: but the Nation of the Iews is to be preferred to them all,

because God Himself dwelleth with us, he is always nigh at hand, and we converse familiarly with, him dai∣ly: whenever we inquire of him, he answereth us; when∣ever we stand in need of Direction and Assistance, he goes before us as our Guide, He protects and defends us, He helps and delivers us. Again,8 1.315 What Nation is there so great that hath Statutes and Iudgments so righteous? Where he sheweth on another account the Iews Preemi∣nence, viz. their having so exact a Law given them by God. It appears not that the Gentiles had any Spe∣cial Rules and Positive Laws prescribed them, as the Iews had. The Laws of the Old Testament were revea∣led only to this People, and to no other Nations. They were peculiar Laws, and therefore the Gentiles were not under the particular Obligation of them. Moses his Law never bound any but the Iews and Proselytes who made themselves Inhabitants of that Land: it obliged no other Nations under Heaven. For it was designed for the Jews only, and not for others; that is, Christ being to be born amongst them, God granted to them Particular and Special Favours, to distinguish them from other peo∣ple, to Sanctifie and Consecrate them especially. There∣fore God separated the Israelites from the rest of the World, and gave them particular Constitutions and In∣junctions: he shew'd his Word unto Jacob, his Statutes and Iudgments unto Israel: he hath not deale so with any Nation; and as for his Iudgments, they have not known them, Psal. 147. 19, 20. i. e. the Nations of the World were not govern'd by particular Laws as the Iews, they were not so highly honour'd and blessed. God was not pleas'd to manifest himself to them in a like degree. In this regard the Psalmist saith, Psal. 139. 4. The Lord hath chosen Jacob unto himself, and Isra∣el for his peculiar treasure. And in this respect God

saith to Israel, You only have I known of all the Families of the Earth, Amos 3. 2. God knew that People in a manner different from all others: he convers'd with them in a more intimate way than with the rest of the World, he reveal'd himself to them in a particular and special manner: he govern'd and ruled that People by peculiar Laws and Sanctions, and he wrought extraordi∣nary Wonders to support and deliver them: so that in comparison of the Iews God may be said not to have known the Gentiles. The Apostle likewise declareth the Preference and Prerogative of the Iew above other Peo∣ple, in answer to that question,9 1.316 What advantage hath the Jew? or what profit is there of Circumcision? much every way, saith he, chiefly because unto them were com∣mitted the Oracles of God. They had singular Discove∣ries and Revelations of God's Will above others, which was a Sign and Assurance of the greatest Favour imagi∣nable. They had Holy Laws, to make them holier than others, and they carried the Sign and Mark of the Holy Covenant even on their flesh. For this reason God may be said to have been the God of their Nation.

But whilst he shew'd more especial kindness to them, he did not neglect the rest; for besides that all of them lived under the Law of general Grace, many of them were specially favoured, and experienced the distinguish∣ing Grace of God. The Blessings of God's Church rea∣ched even to some of those that were not within the Pale of it. A Divine Light was reflected from the Church to those that were not thought Members of it. Some en∣lightning and refreshing Rays were sent out to them, tho the Sun was not risen on their Horizon. The Sum of all is, that when God made a Covenant with Abraham and his Posterity the Israelites, he did not debar other Peo∣ple from Saving Grace and all Spiritual Benefits. There

were, besides Abraham's Family, and the Body of the Israelites who came from Abraham, other Persons in the World who knew and worship'd God in a true and right manner. Some that were at a great distance from the Holy Land, and were Aliens to the Commonwealth of Israel, were Heirs of Eternal life. Some of all Nati∣ons were virtually included in the Covenant, altho not mantioned. Tho they were not to enter into Canaan, (and Canaan could not hold them) which was part of the Covenant to the Israelites, yet they were as good as taken in as to other Clauses of it, and as to the Effence and Substance of it, viz. the Spiritual Mercies couched in it. Thus they were comprehended in the Covenant of Life and Salvation, for all (of what Nation soever) were Partakers of the Benefits of it upon their believing and repenting. Not only Iews but Gentiles were inte∣rested in it. In the full Meal and Provision which God made for his own People the Israelites, some Portions, some Fragments fell besides the Table, which others ga∣ther'd up. This is God's Administration to the Gen∣tiles: and I make it a particular and distinct Dispensati∣on, tho I see those who reckon up the different Dispensa∣tions of Religion omit this. The Reason, I suppose, is because this Gentile Dispensation is mixed with the rest of the Dispensations. Because it was concurrent with the Patriachal and Mosaical Oeconomies, and was not a thing by it self, they took no notice of it. But not∣withstanding this, it is a peculiar Dispensation, and a very remarkable one too, as the Premises may convince us. And at last our Blessed Saviour perfected this Dis∣pensation, for a little before he left the World he en∣joyn'd the Apostles to go and teach all Nations, Mat. 28. 19. to Evangelize the Goyim, the Nations, (for so the Iews call'd all People besides themselves) to propagate Christianity throughout the whole World. And accor∣dingly we read that when the Apostles had continued some time at Ierusalem after Christ's Ascention (only

some of them now and then slepping abroad to confirm the neighbouring Churches that were lately planted) * 1.317 they issued out with one consent into several Countries, where by their Travels they spread the Gospel as effectu∣ally, as David and Solomon did the Hebrew Tongue, the one by his numerous Conquests, the other by his prospe∣rous Fleets and Commerces: so that even in St. Paul's time the Gospel was Preached to every Creature under Heaven, Col. 1. 23. Thus at length the Gentile Dis∣pensation was swallow'd up of the Evangelical one, which now I will particularly speak of.

CHAP. XI.

The Christian or Evangelical Oeconomy. It a∣grees with the former Dispensations of Grace as to the Designation of the Messias. As to the way of Salvation. As to the Conditions and Qualifications of it. This corroborated by the suffrage of the Antient Fathers. It differs from the Mosaick Oeconomy or Law as to the Author in some respect. As to the Actual Discovery of it. As to the Clearness of it. As to its Spirituality. As to its Extent. As to several Circumstances that relate to the Conditions of Salvation; which are largely enumerated. As to the Motives of Obedience. The Doctrine of the Socinians, viz. that there were no Promises of Eternal Life under the Old Testament, confuted. As to the Perfection of its Pattern. As to its Helps and Assistan∣ces. This Query, Whether Christ added any new Laws to those which were before under the Old Testament, resolved in several Par∣ticulars. It is proved against the Socinians, that Prayer was commanded under the Law. How Love is call'd a New Commandment.

THe Christian or Evangelical Dispensation is next to be treated of. God having at sundry times and in di∣vers manners spoken in times past, hath now in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, Heb. l. 1, 2. He was pleased to reserve the utmost Completion of all the Pro∣mis••s made to the Patriarchs and the Iews till this time:

Now by Christ's coming we have the perfect Accom∣plishment of them all. Christianity comprehends all the other Dispensations, and is the Upshot of them all. This is called the Revelation of the Mystery which was kepe se∣cret since the World began but now is made manifest, Rom. 16. 26, 27. and the Mystery of Christ which in other ages was not made known unto the Sons of Men, but is now revealed unto his holy Apostles and Prophets by the Spirit, Eph. 3. 4, 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is properly he that brings forth, and distributes that which was before laid up. This is agreeable to the Oeconomy which we are now to discourse of; the great Things which were hid∣den and treasured up before, are now brought forth, and discovered, and communicated to the World. This is that Dispensation which brings Everlasting Righteous∣ness with it, this is the Highest and Noblest Exertment of the Covenant of Grace; and all the Mercy and Par∣don which former Generations found, were on the sole account of this Period. This Dispensation of the Messias is represented by Iohn Baptist, and by Christ himself, to be the most Glorious State that hath yet appeared in the World, or that ever shall appear; for Christianity, as most perfect, includes all the Laws before named, and all the ways of Discovery that can be made.

1. I will shew the particular Nature of this Dispen∣sation, and how it differs from the others. 2. I will shew why this Evangelical Dispensation took not place in the World before. 3. I must particularly and directly prove the Truth and Certainty of this Oeconomy, and of the Christian Religion. 4. I will discover to you the several Degrees of this Dispensation. All which Parti∣culars are of great use for the right understanding of this last Administration of Religion.

1. I will display the particular Nature and Quality of this Oeconomy, this new Oeconomy of the Gospel. Here I will let you see, 1. That as to the main it agrees with all the other Oeconomies of Grace, viz. from the

Restoration of Adam. 2. That tho as to the main it a∣grees with all the foregoing Dispensations, yet as to sun∣dry particulars it differs from them. First, all the Dis∣pensations agree in the main, i. e.

1. The Divine Designation or Appointment of the Messias reach'd to them all. This Lamb was slain from the foundation of the World, Rev. 13. 8. His Sufferings and Death were decreed from all Ages; Christ was cru∣cified from the beginning, even from Eternity. For tho some interpret this place, as if it alluded to the Mur∣der of Abel, the first holy Person that was slain, and as if it took in the rest of the Martyrs in after Ages, the Lamb here signifying the whole Succession of Saints who were innocent and spotless in their Lives, and invincible in their Deaths (and so Christ as well as others may be said to be slain from the fo••ndation of the World, because there was at First, even at the Beginning of the World, this Example of the Wicked's murdering the Just) yet this must be look'd upon as a forced Interpretation of the words: for in the stile of Scripture (excepting those pla∣ces where the Sense must needs be restrained and limited because of the subject matter) from the foundation of the World is as much as from Eternity, as is plain from Mat. 25. 34. Inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the World; and from Ioh. 17. 24. Thou lovedst me before the foundation of the World▪ for from the foundation or before the foundation are here the same. Or, suppose this Phrase [from the foundation of the World] doth not denote Eternity, yet it is enough for our purpose that Christ, the Lamb of God, was slain from the beginning of the World, for from thence we may gather, that it was designed and appointed to reach to all following Generations.

2. The way and method of Salvation was the same un∣der all the Dispensations of Grace: for Christ instructed his Church in all Ages: the Gospel was preached to them a•• well as to us, Heb. 4. 2. All the Patriarchs and Pro∣phets

and Holy Men of past ages, arrived at Heaven and Hap∣piness by the Conduct of this great Guide.1 1.318 Iesus Christ, the same yesterday, 〈…〉〈…〉 day, and for ever, are words appliable to Christ, nor only as he is King and Priest, but also as he is Prophet and Teacher of his Church. Which Sacred Office he hath faithfully performed in all Ages, and there hath been no Time since the Church was founded, but he hath been the Instructer of it. The Covenant of Grace was made first of all with Adam in Paradise, and God hath from Age to Age renewed that Covenant to his Church: and the Grace of God in Christ was common to the Antient Patriarchs and Iews with us. So that from the Fall of our first Parents to the end of the World, the way of Exp••ation and of ob∣taining Salvation hath been, is, and shall be the same, viz. by Christ and by his Merits. The Virtue of his Death (altho he actually died long after) commenced with the first Promise made to Adam. The2 1.319 Socinians oppose this, and generally hold that the Godly who lived before the time of the Messias were not saved by Him: they assert that they knew nothing of it, and that there were other means of being saved under the Old Testament than there are under the New. But this is a Doctrine deservedly exploded by all Persons who are of the Ortho∣dox Faith, and who own the True Christian Religion. They all agree that the same way of Salvation hath al∣ways prevailed, that all who were saved under the Old Testament, were saved by Virtue of Christ's Death and Satisfaction. There was Justification under the Law, tho not by it, or by virtue of it. Those that believed with their whole hearts on God, and faithfully serv'd him, were justified, and obtain'd Remission of their Sins,

and Eternal Life by that Grace which was couched in the Law, i. e. promis'd in the Messias, and figured and re∣presented by the obscure Types of the Law. By virtue of the Grace to be exhibited by Christ, even those who were before his arrival, were saved. This is the Doc∣trine which St. Peter preach'd, Acts 15. 11. We believe that through the grace of the Lord Iesus Christ we shall be saved even as They, i. e. the Fathers before Christ, as is clear from the foregoing verse. The Holy Men then were acquainted with the Substance of this Covenant, viz. the Promise of Restoration by Christ: and consequently the Old Testament Saints were saved by him. Thus we are told by another inspired Author, that by means of Christ's Death there was Redemption for the Transgressors that were under the first Testament, Heb. 9. 15. For tho the Redemption of Mankind was not actually wrought by him till he died on the Cross, yet the Virtue and Be∣nefit of it were in all Ages, as the Sun spreads its light, and illuminates our Region before its glorious Body ap∣peareth above the Horizon.

3. As to the Conditions and Qualifications on our part, all the Dispensations of Grace were the same. All sub∣stantial Duties towards God and Man are the same now that they were then. Even Faith in the Messias is as an∣tient as that Promise on which it was first founded, that the Bless••d Seed should break the Serpents head, Gen. 3. 15. They who lived before Christ's Incarnation con••i∣ded in this Promised Deliverer, by whose Merit they ho∣ped to be reconciled to God. Faith in Christ was a Du∣ty under the Old Testament, because there were Promi∣ses concerning the Messias then, as is evident from Luke 1. 72. and what were these Promisessor, but to be cre∣dited and relied upon? Therefore it is recorded that Abraham Believed, Rom. 4. 3. Gal. 3. 6. And our Saviour witnesseth, that Abraham rejoiced to see his day, and he saw it, and was glad, Joh. 8. 56. The Reason was, because (as the Apostle saith) God preached the Gos∣pel

to Abraham, Gal. 3. 8. and discovered the Messias to him. The just lived by Faith in Habakkuk's time, Hab. 2. 4. which by the Apostle is applied to the Evangelical Faith, in Rom. 1. 17. Gal. 3. 11. Therefore when 3 1.320 Socinus tells us that Faith in Christ was not comprehen∣ded in the Mosaick Covenant, and when one of his Scho∣lars confidently avers, that4 1.321 it is a gross Error to think that the Fathers under the Old Testament believed in Christ to come, and were justified by that Faith, we know whence to confute these bold Men. That the Evangelical Righteousness and Justification were in the Old Testament is clear, because the Apostle brings Ex∣amples of this free Justification out of the Old Testa∣ment, Rom. 4. 3, 6, &c. That Salvation by Faith in Christ was no New thing is evident from other places, as Acts 10. 43. To him give all the Prophets witness, that through his Name whosoever believeth in him, shall receive remission of sins. And Rom. 3. 21, 22. The righteousness of God with••ut the Law is manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteous∣ness of God which is by faith of Iesus Christ unto all, and upon all them that believe. A••d St. Peter (1 Epis••. Chap. 2. ver. 6.) proves that Chris•• is the foundation whereupon all the Saints are built, from Isa. 28. 16. Behold I lay in Sion a chief corner-stone, elect, precious; and he that believeth on him, shall not be confounded. From all which it may be undeniably infe••'d, that under the Law they believed in Christ for Justi••••cation, and that the Fathers before Christ were saved by Faith in him, and (in a word) that all from the beginning of the World have been Justified and Saved the same way, viz.

for Christ's Merits, and upon the Gospel-terms of Sin∣cere Faith and Obedience, and of persevering in the same unto the end. Thus in respect of the Designation, the Way, and the Efficacy of Salvation, the Evangelical Dispensation differs not from the preceding ones.

This the Antient Fathers speak of particularly: they defend the Antiquity of Christianity, and prove it to be as old as Moses, yea as Adam.5 1.322 Iustin Mar••yr reckons Abraham and Elias (but he goes too far when he rec∣kons Heraclitus and Socrates) among Christians, in an∣swer to that Objection, that those were Christians only that lived within a hundred and fifty Years. This Pious Father in6 1.323 another place argueth from the Antiquity of the Christian Religion, and the Authors of it. That Re∣ligion which hath the best Authors, and is oldest, is the truest, saith he. They were Fabulous Poets and Dissen∣ting Philosophers that were the Authors of Gentilism, but both of them are ridiculous; whereas the Doctors and Au∣thors of Christianity are Prophets divinely inspired, and those even in the first Ages of the World. That the Christian Religion is the First and most Antient is de∣signedly shew'd by Eusebius in his Evangelical Prepara∣tion▪ and again in his Ecclesiastical History he maintains that7 1.324 the way of Religion and Piety preached by Christ was no Ne•• and Strange thing. More particularly it is maintain'd by8 1.325 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that Abraham's Faith and Ours is the same: and this is asserted by9 1.326 other Fathers. Christianity was on foot always in the Wo••ld. It was not only under the Dispensation of the Law, but it was the Religion of the Old Patriarchs, and of those before

the Flood, and of our First Parents: for the Christian Religion is the Revelation of God's Will concerning the Redeeming and Saving of Man by Christ Iesus. Now, this Religion was in being presently after the Fall of Adam. Then, and ever afterwards, there was no way of Salvation but this, viz. by Jesus the Messias. Indeed we may in some Sense say, it was all along a Gospel-Dispen∣sation. This is that which was from the Beginning, 1 Joh. 1. 1. The Truths of Christianity which the Apostles preach'd were the first Truths. The Doctrine and Duties taught in the New Testament are the same in substance, which were deliver'd to the Servants of God in the most Antient Ages.

Secondly, tho the Christian Dispensation agrees with the foregoing Dispensations of Grace as to the main, yet it differs from them all, and more especially from the Mosaick and Legal O••conomy as to sundry things. As Loving our Brethren is said by1 1.327 St. Iohn to be an Old Commandment, and yet a N••w One; so the Gospel Dis∣pensation is both Old and New in different respects. I have shew'd in what respect it is the former: now I will make it appear also that it is the latter, i. e. that it dif∣fers on several accounts from the former ones.

1. It differs as to the Auth••r. Not as if there were a∣nother Author; but this I mean, that the Author was not the same in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 respect, i. e. he was not Incar••ate be∣fore. The Son of God was not then the Son of Man, he had not assumed 〈◊〉〈◊〉. This 〈◊〉〈◊〉 therefore is New and Peculiar on the account of Christ's Incarnation: He now appear'd in Human shape. It is worth our no∣tice that this Appearing of Christ is signally and eminent∣ly call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Dispensation by the Antient Christians. Sometimes it is2 1.328 barely stiled so, and at o∣ther

times with some Additions, as the2 1.329 Dispensation according to the flesh,3 1.330 the Dispensation of the Word ac∣cording to Man,4 1.331 the human Dispensation,5 1.332 the Dispen∣sation of the Manhood▪6 1.333 the Dispensation of the Medi∣ator, 6 1.334 the Glorious Saving Dispensation. B••iefly, not only Christ's Incar••ation, but the whole Mystery of our Redemption by him, and whatever he was pleas'd to submit and condescend to in his human Nature ••or the good of Mankind, is call'd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the Greek Fa∣thers, and is said to be understood and taken 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And some of the Latin Fathers likewise may be observed to use the word Oeconomia in this Emphatical way, as Hilary in his 9th Book of the Trinity: and 'tis said by St. Ierom that the Here••ic•• Apollinaris7 1.335 introduced the half Oeconomy of Christ, i. e. he did in a manner deny the Assumption of the human Nature in Christ. And you may further remark that this word is very singularly applied to the Administration of the Gospel by St. Paul in several places (which was the occasion, it is probable, of the Fathers using it in that way) he calls this the Dis∣pensation of the fulness of Time, Eph. 1. 10. The Myste∣ry of Salvation was decreed by God from Eternity, but he chose out a fit and convenient opportunity to dispense and exert his Eternal Counsels, and this is here in an e∣minent manner call'd the Dispensation in the full and com∣plete time. The Apostle also calls it the Dispensation of the Grace of God, Eph. 3. 2. and the Dispensation of God, Col. 1. 25. and barely a Dispensation, 1 Cor. 9. 17. It is no wonder then that Christ's Coming in the flesh is more emphatically call'd the Dispensation, and8 1.336 the In∣carnate

Dispensation; which makes it a peculiar One, and different from all the rest.

2. It differs from all other Dispensations, because now is the Actual Performing and Fulfilling of that which was only foretold and promised under the other Oeconomi••s. The Law was a shadow of things to come, Col. 2. 17. The Hebrews have no Present Tense, the Iewish Dispen∣sation look'd forward to what was to be accomplish'd aft••••wards. But the Christian Dispensation looks back∣ward, and hath an eye to what is al••eady done and finish∣ed. The Saints before the time of the Gospel were sa∣ved by Christ that was to come, but the Saints since are sa∣ved by Christ that is already come. There is this diffe∣rent Aspect in these Dispensations.

3. The Evangelical Administration is distinguish'd from the others as to this, that they were dark and ••b∣scure, but this is plain and clear; they abounded with mere Shadows and Representations, but this presents us with a distin••t knowledg of the things themselves which were shadowed forth. The Salvation by Christ, and his whole Undertaking, Birth, Life, and Death, were ob∣scurely and mystically delivered under the Law. It is granted that that Proposition of St. Peter,1 1.337 There is no other Name under heaven given among men wh••reby w•• must be saved, was no less true before the Birth and Com∣ing of Christ in the flesh, than it is now since his Com∣ing, but it was not so manifestly reveal'd as it is since. God led Israel by a Cloud: they were entertain'd with Shadows, mystical and dark Representations; that is, they were undiscernable by the vulgar sort of Persons, who had not time or opportunity to search into them, and whose minds are taken up with gross and inferiour matters. And as for those Holy and Good Men amongst them who saw through these Shadows, and grasp'd at

the very Substance, they could not at that distance under∣stand the things concerning the Messias, which we now have a perfect notice of. The Mosaick Rites were but an imperfect delineating of that which the Gospel gives us a lively Pourtray of. Which is the meaning of that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Evangelist, The Law wa•• by Moses, but Grace and Truth came by Iesus Christ, Joh. 1. 17. The gracious Dispensation of the Messias under the Gos∣pel, is a True, Real, and Substantial thing, opposed to the Mosaick Shadows and Resemblances. Thus you will find Truth opposed to Typ••s and Figures, in Dan. 7. 16, 19. Heb. 8. 2. & 9. 24. Truth then came by Jesus Christ, not as Truth stands in opposition to Falshood and Lies, but to Types and Shadows. Christ in this sense is call'd the tr••e Light, and true Bread, Joh. 1. 9. Joh. 6. 32. The Ceremonial Law was but a Figure of the Evan∣gelical Truth. And this is deservedly called Tr••th, be∣cause all the Ceremonial Types are Verified and Fulfill'd in Christ. All those Iudaick Hieroglyphicks are now un∣ridled, and plainly discovered to the World, and he that runs may read them. The Types and Symbols are gone, and now the Things themselves are present, and are clearly understood by us. This makes the difference between the Mosaick Dispensation and the Evangelical One. The Doctrine of Salvation and the means of Life by Christ, are more intelligible and plain than they were before. Their Conceptions of those things were intri∣cate and obscure, but we have arrived to clear and distinct Notions concerning them. In short, the way of Salvati∣on was before more dark and general, they saw Christ through ••ertain Perspectives afar off, but now the fulness of time is come, and hath given us a near and more perfect view of those things which they saw but in a glass darkly.

4. The Religion of the Gospel is more Inward and Lively than that of the Law and the Jewish Administra∣tion. There is now introduced a Rational and Manly

Service: our Religion is chiefly the employment of our Minds and Understandings, and not so much of our Bodies and lower Faculties. We now worship God in Spirit as well as in Truth (of which I spake befo••e): we worship in a spiritual manner, opposed to outward and bodily Service, as Sacrifices, Purifications, &c. The Evangelical Righteousness is a Spiritual Admini∣stration, a Vital Principle, able to beget a Divine Life; whereas the Law comparatively was an external dead Letter, and did not sufficiently actuate the Minds and Spirits of Men. It is true, the History of the Gospel, or the Doctrin of the Evangelists, as it is merely pro∣pounded and written, is as much external as the Law; but the ministration of the Spirit (as the Apostle calls it) going along with the Gospel in a more especial and peculiar manner, is a powerful Principle in the Souls of Men, whereby they are inwardly renewed and trans∣formed. And so the Gospel (compared with the Law) is of greater Power, Might and Efficacy, and is able to produce a heavenly and spiritual frame of Soul, and a sincere performance of the Divine Laws. This is the Law promis'd to be written in the Hearts of Men, and to be put into their inward parts, Jer. 31. 33.

5. This Dispensation of the Gospel is larger and ampler than that of the Law, and of other Dispensati∣ons before it: For the Church was shut up in narrow bounds, and confined to a few Families of the Patri∣archs: Afterwards it was limited to the Land of Ca∣naan, and to the H••brew People, (excepting a few that were without, who knew God's Will, and were gra∣ciously accepted.) But after Christ came, the Church was not tied to one Place or certain Nation, but hath been ever since the Congregation of all such as truly know and worship Christ in any part of the World. The Christian Dispensation is not local and temporary, not confined to place or time, not circumscribed by a particular Country. Now not one Nat••on only, or a

few of others, are honoured with Laws given from God himself; but Gentiles and Iews, Greeks and Barbarians, all Kindreds and Tongues, all Coun∣tries and Regions of the Universe have heard the sound of the Gospel, and have had the Divine Laws, which were given by Christ himself, offer'd to them. Our Saviour bid his Disciples1 1.338 go into all the World, and teach all Nations: And accordingly (as was ob∣serv'd before) they travell'd into all the World which was at that time known, and proclaimed the Messias to them. Thus Christ came and preach'd Peace to them that were afar off, and to them that were nigh, Ephes. 2. 17. All Places and Countries had the privilege of the Gospel, and might receive advantage by it. This is one remarkable Difference between the Legal and the Evangelical Dispensation: the former was Narrow and Contracted; the latter was Full, Ample, Comprehen∣sive and Catholick.

6. Altho (as hath been said) the Conditions of Sal∣vation are the same now as to the main with those be∣fore, yet they vary as to several Circumstances. To be∣gin with Faith, the first and chief Condition of Salva∣tion, the grand Fundamental Grace of Christianity: This is reckon'd by the Reverend Bishop Taylor among the Instances of Duties which are new under the Gospel: But the true account is this, that Faith was not a Pre∣cept of the Natural or Moral Law, but was a new Pre∣cept added to it by Revelation, when the First Promise and New Covenant were made. But ever since that it hath not been New; for (as I have proved) the An∣tient Patriarchs were saved by Faith in Christ. He was the Object of Faith then as well as now: the2 1.339 Faith of the first Believers was the same with the Faith of Chris∣tians.

Yet notwithstanding this, this Grace of Faith hath a different aspect from what it had. The Fathers believed in the Messias that was to come, and we believe in the same Jesus who is come, and hath taken on him our Nature, and laid down his Life, and shed his pre∣cious Blood for the redemption of lost Man; and rose again and ascended into Heaven. Thus the believing of Christ's Birth, Passion, Resurrection and Ascension, is in this respect n••w, that Faith looks upon them as ac∣complished. But otherwise, in respect of the things themselves, it is the old Faith, i. e. the same which those that lived before the time of the Messias exerted. Christ that was to be crucified, was the Object of their Belief; and Christ already crucified, is the Object of ours. This is confirm'd ••rom Isa. 53. Acts 15. 11. 1 Cor. 5. 7. Heb. 9. 11. and abundance of other Texts. St. Augustine having affirmed, that the Saints of old were saved in the same way that we are, viz. by Faith in Jesus, adds3 1.340 this distinction, They (saith he) were saved by Faith in Christ's future Sufferings, and we by Faith in those Sufferings as they are already past. This is that which our Church saith,4 1.341 speaking of the People of God that lived before Christ's Incarnation: Alth•• they were not named Christian men, yet was it a Christian Faith which they had, for they looked for all the Benefits of God the Father, through the Merits of his Son Iesus Christ, as we now do. This difference is between them and us, that they looked when Christ should come, and we are in the time when he is come. Besides, a more general Belief was sufficient for mens Salvation before the Mes∣sias's coming than is now. It was not necessary to Sal∣vation to believe so expresly and explicitly concerning

Christ and his Undertakings, as we are obliged to be∣lieve since. So that tho there is not now a New Faith, neither are there New Articles of Faith, yet there are New Exertments of Faith, and more clear and express Acts of Belief.

And to Faith I may adjoin Hope, for Hope is found∣ed on Faith; and therefore Faith being more clear and express under the Gospel (as I have said) it follows that Hope is so too▪ it is more stable and firm, more sure and certain than the Hope of those before Christ's coming: and on this account the Gospel is deservedly call'd the bringing in of a better Hope, Heb. 7. 19. Christians having seen the accomplishment of all those things which ••ormer Ages had no experiment of, their Hope must needs be bettered, i. e. exalted and in∣creased.

And as for Charity, and all the rest of the Virtues, Graces and Duties required of us (for I will speak of them altogether) they differ from what they were un∣der the Mosaick Dispensation as to these following things.

(1.) There are greater measures of every Grace now under Christianity, than there were under the other Dis∣pensations. Christians reach now to higher Degrees and Perfections of Virtue than those under the Law did: And this indeed was the design of the Gospel; this Dispensation came in the last place, to add a greater Perfection than ever any other preceding Models of Reli∣gion pretended to.

(2.) A greater stri••tness and ••nactness in all Du∣ties is required now, than was under the legal Dis∣pensation. This you must know, that tho the Rigour of the Law be abated under the Gospel, yet the Evan∣gelical Obedience is stricter than that of the Law; Ex∣cept your Righteo••sness exceed the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, yo cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, saith our Saviour, Mat. 5. 20. A more

circumspect and accurate way of living is expected from Christ's Disciples, than from those of Moses: A more severe sanctity and conformity to God's Will are requir∣ed of them, than of these.

But yet I must add in the third place, That whereas the Law (which did in a manner revive the Covenant of Works) required perfect Works and sinless Obedi∣ence, the Gospel requires no such thing, but accepts of imperfect, but sincere Obedience, which is made ac∣ceptable by Christ's Satisfaction. Under the Gospel Men are not so much obnoxious for offending, as for continuing obstinately in their Offences: And Mer∣cy is now denied, not for Sin committed, but for per∣sisting in Sin without Repentance. This is a grand Diffe∣rence between the Law and the Gospel▪ that was harsh and rigorous, this is gentle and favourable.

Again, Duties are further extended and enlar∣ged now than they were before: Which must needs be, because the State of Christianity is wider and larger than that of Iudaism▪ There is more Love now, be∣cause the former aversness and enmities are removed. 1 1.342 C••rist (as the Apostle saith) sath abolish'd in his Flesh the Enmity, even the Law of Commandments contained in Ordinances, i. e. the Mosaick Law consisting in Pre∣cepts about peculiar Rites and distinct Observances, whereby the Gentiles were differenced from the Iews, which made a breach between them. But a Vniversal Charity breaths in the Gospel, and the Exertments of it are of greater latitude than those heretofore. Elijah call'd for Fire from Heaven upon his Enemies, and was not blamed, but heard by God, 2 Kings 1. 10, 12. but Iames and Iohn, Apostles of Christ, did the same thing, and were severely check'd for it, Luke 9. 54. And we read that St. Peter was commanded to put up his Sword when he

drew it in his Master's Quarrel, which certainly was the best in the World. The reason of this is not only be∣cause the Evangelical Temper is more mild and loving than that legal one, but because its Laws are more ex∣tensive, and more favourable. Nay, whereas the Old Law commanded Love to their Brethren, the Gospel bids us shew that Love by dying for them, if there be occasion, Iohn 15. 12. 1 Iohn 3. 16. And in other Circumstances I might shew that the Evangelical Obe∣dience is larger and more comprehensive than that of the Law.

In the fifth place, this must be said likewise, that some particular Graces and Duties flow more g••nuinely from the Spirit of the Gospel, than from the Legal Principles, and are more frequently inculcated, and more closely ur∣ged on our Consciences and Lives in the New Testament, than they are in the Old. These special Graces and Ex∣ercises of Evangelical Righteousness, are purity of Heart, and inward sincerity, minding the manner of our Du∣ties, and serving of God from an inward love of Holi∣ness; a shunning of secret Sins▪ a constant sense of our Weakness and Unworthiness, of our Inability of our selves to think or do any thing that is good and accep∣table to God; a being weary and heavy laden under the sense of Sin, a feeling of the odious Nature of it, and loathing our selves for it; Self-denial and Mortification, an absolute resigning our selves, Souls and Bodies, unto God▪ a subduing all our Carnal Desires, Lusts and Ap∣petites▪ a refraining from the least Sins; making con∣science of all Offences, evil Thoughts, idle Words; abstaining from all appearance of Evil; renouncing eve∣ry Sin, tho against our Profit and Interest; a universal hatred of all Vice, without any reserves▪ a continual watchfulness against all Temptations, and striving by all means to conquer Sin in us; moderation in the use and enjoyment of the good things of this Life; a using this World as not abusing it; a possessing our Souls in

patience in the midst of all Afflictions and Tribulations; an entertaining all Occurrences with thankfulness and contentedness, and a preparing for the worst; a quel∣ling of all inordinate Passion, and suffering not the Sun to go down on our Wrath▪ ••a•••• ••bstaining from all re∣viling and bitterness of Speech, ye•• a praying for our Persecutors▪ Bowels of Mercy, tender-heartedness, pity and compassion; weeping with those that weep, and bearing one anothers burdens; mildness and meek∣ness towards all Men, laying aside revenge, and forgiv∣ing those who have done us wrong▪ yea, loving and do∣ing good to our very Enemies; Truth and Faithfulness towards those we converse with, simplicity, open∣heartedness, sincerity in words and actions▪ a profound humility and lowliness of mind, a preferring others be∣fore our selves; a minding not of high things, but con∣descending to those of low estate; the spirit of Suppli∣cation and Prayer, taking delight in communion with God, daily presenting our selves before the Throne of Grace, to ask pardon of our Sins for Christ's sake; peace of Conscience, and joy in the Holy Ghost; con∣tempt of the World, heavenly-mindedness, a Spirit raised above the Earth, breathing and longing for Hea∣ven, and a better State▪ a living on the Life to come, a depending on the unseen Glory hereafter▪ a pre••erring Heaven and everlasting Joys before all things here be∣low; a making God the ultimate End, and referring all to his Glory; not fearing Death, but chearfully ex∣pecting it; lastly, growing in Grace, daily increasing in Godliness and Righteousness, aspiring to the highest degree of Holiness, and striving for the utmost perfecti∣on we are capable of. This is no new Draught of Re∣ligion, but such as the most Holy Men before Christ's coming were acquainted with; but these Precepts and Duties are chiefly the result of the Ev••ngelical Spirit, and they are mos•• improved by Christianity, and they are of••ner inculcated and press'd upon us in the Evangelical

Writings than in those of the Old Testament.

7. The Grounds and Motives of Evangelical Obedi∣ence differ from those of the Legal one, as will appear from these three Particulars.

First, There are more deterring Punishments under the Gospel, than under the Law. It is true, the Penal∣ty of Sin unrepented of under the legal Oeconomy, was the Eternal Wrath of God, call'd by1 1.343 Daniel, everlast∣ing sha•••• and contempt; and by2 1.344 Isaiah, everlasting burnings: but there was not so full a discovery, and so great a certainty of these at that time as there hath been since; which should be a mighty disswasive to us from sinning against the Light of the Gospel, especially when we consider that our Guilt is unspeakably aggravated, by sinning in defiance of the extraordinary means vouch∣safed to us by the coming of Christ. If the Word spo∣ken by Angels (i. e. if the Law, which was given by the ministry of Angels) was stedfast, and every Trans∣gression and Disobedience receiv'd a just recompence of Reward; how shall we escape if we neglect so great Sal∣vation, which was at first spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed afterwards to us by them that heard him? Heb. 2. 2, 3. And to the same purpose, in Heb. 10. 28, 29. He that despised Moses's Law died without Mercy. Of how much s••rer Punishment shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under-foot the Son of God? The Penalty of disobedience to the Gospel is more grievous than that which was inflicted upon Offenders against the Law.

Secondly, There are more prevailing Rewards. The Law dealt in Temporal Blessings and Earthly Promises chiefly, the very mold and make of their Religion be∣ing earthly and grovelling; but their terrene and tem∣poral Promises figured a Celestial Felicity, and were

Umbrages of a Future Inheritance. Spiritual and Hea∣venly things were exhibited to the Church of old under Sensual and Earthly Representations, and Eternal Life was included in the Promise of the Land of Canaan. Yea, it cannot be denied that Immortal Life and Endless Hap∣piness were expresly made known, and promis'd by God to the Faithful among the Iews. This is very fiercely con∣tradicted by3 1.345 S••cinus, and the generality of his Party. The4 1.346 Rac••vian Catechism is positive, that none of the Pious Men and Holy Patriarchs before the coming of Christ, knew any thing of Heaven and Everlasting Life. These were not known, say they, because they were not promis'd to those under the Old Covenant. The same thing is asserted in5 1.347 one of Smalcius's Disputati∣ons against Frantzius. Indeed6 1.348 Volk••lius grants, that the Iews might have some desire and expectation of Eternal Life, tho there was no promise of it: but he confutes himself in saying before, that such a Discovery was not proper and convenient for that Dispensation. He maintains that it is peculiar to the New Covenant under which Christians are; and that this is one main thing wherein it excels the Old Covenant: To say otherwise, saith he, were to mix and confound the Covenants and Dispensations. And therefore he peremptorily de∣termines that there were no Promises of Eternal Life under the Old Testament: they knew nothing of an Immortal State, they were tied down to the Earth, Canaan was their Heaven. He spends a whole Chap∣ter (and that one of his longest) upon this very thing. The Remonstrants are partly of this Opinion, as you

may see in their7 1.349 Apology, and in8 1.350 Gr••tius and9 1.351 E∣piscopius, who hold, that Eternal Life was not promis'd by God to Adam and the Old Patriarchs, neither did they know any thing of it. Tho S••crates and Plat••, who were Heathens, make some mention of a ••uture and endless State, yet the People of God, the Chosen Ge∣neration, to whom were committed the Oracles of God, had no apprehension of any such thing. Abraham, Moses, David, and all the Inspired Soul•• whom the Writings of the Old Testament speak of, had scarce any notice of it. All the Antient Worshippers of God, all the Religious Patriarchs were ignorant of Future Hap∣piness; poor grovelling Creatures, they look'd no high∣er, no further than this present Life.

This is the Doctrine of S••cinus's Followers and Friends; but certainly he that hath carefully perused the Old and New Testament, cannot but pronounce it false: For God tells the Iews, that if they will do his Commandments, they shall live in them, Levit. 18. 5. Which Promise you will find to comprehend in it Eter∣nal Life, if you compare that place with Rom. 10. 5. and Gal. 3. 12. And that Life Everlasting was known to those of the Old Testament, is manifest from Dan. 12. 2. where it is said, Many of them that sleep in the Dust, shall aw•••••• to Everlasting Life. This one place is a sufficient con••utation of the Secinian Writers, who deny that there was any such thing revealed and known under the Law. I might take notice how Iob expresses his sense and belief of this Future State, Chap. 19. 25. which without doubt he learnt from the neighbouring Iews. But I will pass to the New Testament, where it is farther evident, that this endless Blessedness was not

unknown to the Iews. It was one of that Nation that came to our Saviour, and ask'd him, What ••e should d•• that he might have Eternal Life, Matth. 19. 16. Which shews that Eternal Life was made known to that People, and that the M••s••ick Law promis'd no less to the Keepers of it. Again, this is clear from our Sa∣viour's words in Iohn 5. 39. Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have Eternal Life. He speaks here to the Iews, Ye think and believe (and that most tru∣ly) saith he, that there is an Eternal State hereafter, it being revealed in the Sacred Writings which are com∣mitted to you. We read, that the Pharisees, a consi∣derable part of the Iewish People, believed a Resurrecti∣on to a Future Life, Acts 24. 15. Nay, this was the ground of the hope of the Promise made of God unto the Fathers, Chap. 26. 6. viz. the Promise of Eternal Life founded on the Resurrection from the Dead. And that the Fathers of old rested not in Temporal and Earthly Promises, is evident from that very plain Text, Heb. 11. 14, 16. The Patriarchs, those Holy Pil∣grims, sought and desired a better Country, that is, an Heavenly, viz. a State of Immortal Glory and Happi∣ness in the highest ••eavens. From all these places of Holy Writ we may 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (in the words of our3 1.352 Church) That the Old Testament is not centrary to the New; for in both of them Everlasting Life is offered to Mankind by Christ. Wherefore they are not to be heard, who ••eign that the Old Fathers did look only for transitory Promises. This Fiction, as the Learned Dr. Hammond rightly faith, is caused, by4 1.353 not distinguishing between le••s clear Revelation, and none at all. It is true, there were not such plain and evident Discoveries to those Antients of a future endless Existence, and consequent∣ly

a Reward in ano••her World, as there have been since the coming of the Messias. It is granted, that the Law dealt in temporal and secular things most of all; but it doth not follow thence that the Iews had no higher Promises than those that were earthly, and re∣spected this Life only. Yea, this also must be further granted, that tho Moses and Daniel, and the Prophets, and the most devout Persons among them were sensible of this; yet it is likely many of the Iews look'd no further than the present Enjoyments of this Animal Life; and indeed most of the Blessings we read of seem to hold forth nothing else.

But under the New Testament, Eternal Life is openly and clearly offer'd, and all Persons may be made ap∣prehensive of it. Hence it is that Christ is said to be the Mediator of a better Covenant, which is establish'd on better Promises, Heb. 8. 6. The Promises under the Gospel are better than those under the Law, because they are clearer and plainer concerning an Immortal State hereafter. Here is one great difference between the E∣vangelical and the Legal Dispensation: the latter pro∣pounds future Punishments without end to terrify Of∣••enders, and endless Rewards to ••••courage the Faithful; but the former adds an Assur•••••••• of both these. It makes it manifest, evident and undeniable, that there are such things; it demonstrates to us, that there are never-ceasing Torments for the Wicked, and eternal Joys for the Righteous; of which latter Christ hath as∣sured us by his ascending into Heaven, there to prepare perpetual Mansions of Glory for all his Followers. He came from above, and went thither again, that we might have Life, and that we might have it more abun∣dantly, John 1••0. 10. that we might be every way as∣certain'd of an Immortal State of Glory, and thereby be effectually moved and excited to Obedience.

Thirdly, There is this Motive peculiar to the Dis∣pens••tion of the Gospel, viz▪ the Love of God the Fa∣ther

who sent his Son, and the Love of Christ who died for us. God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son, saith that blessed Disciple whom Jesus loved, Iohn 3. 16. And again, 1 Iohn 4. 9, 10. In this was manifested the Love of God towards us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the World, that we might live through him. Herein is Love, not that we (first) loved him, but that he loved us (first.) Now observe how he makes this a Motive to the Duty of E∣vangelical Love; If God so loved us, we ought to love one another, ver. 11. No former Dispensation affords this Motive. Christ therefore might well say, A New Commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another as I have loved you, John 13. 34. This is a new thing, and is proper to Christianity only. Here the Love of God is shed abroad in our Hearts, Rom. 5. 5. Here the Love of Christ constraineth us, 2 Cor. 5. 14. And then no Duty in Religion comes amiss to us, then we act with vigour and chearfulness, and exert our ut∣most Powers, and that with ease and complacency. This Principle of Love is contrary to the Spirit of Bon∣dage, which is most proper to the Occonomy of the Law, to the breach of every part of which God hath annexed severe Curses to terrify Offenders, and these generally were the most powerful Motives they had to make them obedient. The promulgation of the Law was with great Terrors and Astonishment: Mount Sinai was ano∣ther AEtna, it cast out Flames and Smoke, and nothing was seen and heard but what was very frightful: This well represented the terrible administration of the Law, which breaths Severity and Rigour, and is rightly call'd Esh dath, a firy Law, Deut. 33. 2. They were scar'd into their Duty for the most part. But this servile Spirit, this Principle of legal Fear is banish'd out of Christianity: those that are effectually brought under this Dispensation, act by a Principle of Love; for the Spirit of the Gospel is free and ingenuous, sweet and

gentle, and needs not to be push'd on by rigour and austerity. God hath not given us the Spirit of Fear, but of Love, 2 Tim. 1. 7. Theref••re we may rightly conclude with St. Augustine,1 1.354 that Fear and Love are the grand difference between the Law and the Gos∣pel.

8. As Christianity hath 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Motives, as our Du∣ty is fastned on us by new Obligations▪ and those the greatest and noblest, so we have the perfectes•• P••••tern, the Example of Christ Jesus our Blessed Lord. En••ch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Iob, David, and many o∣thers, were worthy and eminent Examples of Virtue and Goodness in the former Dispensations: But alas, these were Men of like Failings and Infirmities with our selves, and their Lives were not an exact Rule for us to walk by. But the Blessed Iesu••, the Founder of our Religion, was without spot and blemish in his Life, he neither spoke nor did any thing amiss, he was every ways blameless and harmless, pure and under••••led. He gave us a perfect Example of Piety and Devotion, of Justice and Righteousness, of Moderation and Sobriety, of Mercy and Charity, of Humility and Self-denial, of Contentedness and Resignation, of religious Zeal and Courage, of all Virtues and Graces whatsoever which are to adorn the Life of a Christian. Our Saviour was sent on purpose to be a Guide, a Pattern, a Rule to the degenerate World, that by the excellency and transcen∣dency of his Example, he might reduce Mankind to the ways of Religion and Righteousness, that in him they might behold and admire the beauty of Goodness, and the worth of Piety and Holiness; and that by this means Christianity might be commended to the World, and that Men might esteem and love it when it shineth

forth so gloriously in this admirable and unparallel'd Example. In this we have an advantage above those who lived be••ore our Saviour's time. Therefore this may be reckon'd as one Difference between the Iewish and the Christian Church.

9. We under the Gospel have greater Helps and As∣sistances toward the performing of our Duty, than those who lived under other Dispensations had. We have greater Light to direct us, we have more effectual Means to make use of; we have all the revealed Knowledg which they had, and we have much more besides. We have the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament to enlighten, to inform, to instruct us, to check and reprove us, to com••ort and support us. We are bless'd with the Sa∣cred Ordinances of Christ's own Institution, the sole design of which was to convey Knowledg and Grace, Strength and Establishment to our Souls. God hath set in the Church some Apostles, some Prophets, some Evan∣gelists, some Pastors and Teachers, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministry, for the edi∣fying of the Body of Christ; till we all come in the Vni∣ty of the Faith, and of the Knowledg of the Son of God, unto a perfect Man, unto the measure of the Stature of the fulness of Christ, Ephes. 4. 11, &c. To this Per∣fection and Fulness contribute the Holy Sacraments of Christ's appointment. It is true, the Apostle sheweth that the Israelites had the same Religion, the same Co∣v••nant, and that they might be said to have the same Sacra••••nts with us, 1 Cor. 10. 1, &c. (and indeed the Covenant being the same, the Sacraments must be so, which are Seals of the Covenant.) But the Evan∣gelical Sacraments were only typified by those; they were never in actual use till Christ's coming. Baptism and the Eucharist, the two Sacraments of the Gospel, may be rightly said to have been virtually in Circumci∣sion and the Passover, and so are not new: but they are new in another respect, viz. as by the former we are

initiated and adopted into the Christian O••conomy, and by the latter we are confirmed in it. By the pious ce∣lebrating of both which the Spiritual Benefits of the Gospel are exhibited and conferr'd, sealed and assured to the Souls of the Faithful, and they are found to be no contemptible Helps to Religion and Holiness. But the assistance of the Holy Spirit in these and all other Duties of Christianity, is the most signal Privilege of the Gospel. For when1 1.355 Christ ascended up on high he gave Gifts unto Men, especially that matchless Gift the Holy Spirit, whereby not only the Apostles and Pri∣mitive Christians were enabled to speak and act in a miraculous manner; but in all succeeding Ages, the true Followers of Jesus feel the wonderful influence and operation of it on their Hearts and Lives, where∣by they are strengthned to perform what is required of them in a way far surpassing what was in the former Dispensations. This is that which makes Evangelical Grace differ from Moral Virtue and Iudaical Righte∣ousness, viz. that the former is heightned (not only by the Motives of the Gospel, of which I spake before, but) by the Assistance of the Spirit. By this we not only cry, Abba Father, but are enabled to demean our selves as those who are the Sons of God. Thus our Power is mightily increased, which is another great Difference between the Law and the Gospel, between Judaism and Christianity.

This is a brief Account of the Difference between those two Dispensations, the Legal and Evan••elical. Tho it was once said by Luther,2 1.356

There never was that Man found on Earth, who could make a right Difference between the Law and the Gospel;

yet afterwards he gives us to understand, that he thought this was no impossible thing, for he tells us,

That

whoso can rightly judg between the Law and the Gospel, let him thank God, and know that he is a right Divine.

There is great difficulty in perform∣ing this Task, and therefore I have gone through it with much caution; and the whole I leave to the judg∣ment of the Learned and Judicious. The Manichean Hereticks held1 1.357 there was one God that was the Foun∣der of the Law, and another God that was Author of the Gospel: But this gross and blasphemous Error is baffled by those several Particulars which I have offered to you concerning the Law and the Gospel. The same God, blessed for evermore, wisely appointed both these Oeconomies; and tho they are different, yet they are not contradictory. God made those two great Lights, the one to rule the Night, the other the Day: the for∣mer was fitted to those darker times, and the latter is most sutable to the Fulness of time, when a redundant Light overspread the World. The Iewish Oeconomy was narrow, weak and imperfect, and best comported with the People that were under it: but the Gospel-Dis∣pensation is large and ample, compleat and perfect, and therein more adapted to the condition of the Persons who are under this Dispensation, of Christ's Ful∣ness receive, and Grace for Grace, John 1. 16.

Fr••m what hath been said, we may know what to think and determine of that great Query, Whether our Saviour hath added any new Laws and Precepts to those which were before under the Old Testament; or w••ether his Laws and those are the same? I find this Question is too peremptorily decided on both sides. One positively asserts, that all the Evangelical Commands are the very same with the Laws of the former Administration: The others say, there are New Commands added in the Gospel to those of the Law. But, I conceive, the

Question is not to be decided thus in gross, but we ought to be more particular and exact in it. Take it in short thus; First, There were many things of Religion under the Law, which are abrogated under the Gospel, as all Rites and Ceremonies merely Mosaick: There∣fore the Gospel is called the Law of Liberty, Jam. 1. 25. because it ••reesus from observing those Iewish Rites. These were Duties then, but are no Duties now. But, secondly, all things that are our Duty now, were their Duty then. Which I explain thus in these four Propo∣sitions.

Prop. 1. There were the same Laws and Command∣ments in general in the Old Testament that are in the New; tho there are some particular things enjoin'd in the New Testament, which were not prescribed in the Old; as admitting of all Believers into the Church by Baptism (which was never practis'd among the Body of the Iews, tho it was used toward some Proselytes) and celebrating the Lord's Death in the Holy Communion (which could not be done before, because Christ was not come, and therefore could not die.) So there are some particular Precept•• about the Government and Dis∣cipline of the Church of Christ, which were not before in the Iewish Church; and indeed could not be, the state and condition of things being far otherwise. Like∣wise with the New Dispensation came a New Sab••ath; the Seventh day of the w••ek was changed into the First. This is very rational to believe, tho there were no ex∣press mention of any such thing: for now the Iewish Sabbath being repeal'd, Gal. 4. 10, 11. Col. 2. 16. some other day was to be celebrated in its room; that as the former was set apart from the beginning for com∣memorating the Creation of the World, so this latter might be in remembrance of the Redemption of Man∣kind. The change of the Day, and our celebrating of it, are upon weighty grounds, viz. 1. Christ's Resur∣rection from the Dead, whereby Man's New Creation

was perfected. a. Warrantable Authority▪ no less than that of our Saviour himself: for first it is most proba∣ble that Christ himself gave particular Order concerning the observing of this day, when (as we read) for forty days together after his Resurrection, he spak•• to his Disci∣ples concerning the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God, Acts 1. 3. This being of so great concern, and so nearly relating to that Kingdom, and the Occonomy of the Gospel, it is to be presu••••ed, that our Saviour gave particular directions about it, (tho it is not to be denied that there may be a more restrained sense of the Kingdom of God in this place.) It is granted that we have not an express Command from Christ for this practice, but the Scripture is silent as to many other things, which yet we must suppose to have been ••aid or done. Again, 3ly. There is our Saviour's Example and Fact for it, for we find that he set himself in the midst of his Apostles every first day of the week till his Ascension to Heaven, Mat. 28. 18. Mark 16. 14. Luke 24. 36. Ioh. 20. 19. Moreover, his Spirit speaking and acting in his Apostles, taught them to meet constantly together on this day, and in a more solemn manner, to perform the Offices of Di∣vine Worship at this time; Ioh. 20. 9, 26. Acts 17. 7. Acts 20. 7. & 25. 66. 1 Cor. 16. 1, 2. By reason of this divine Institution from our Lord himself, this first day of the week began to be call'd the Lord's Day, Rev. 1. 10. and afterwards it was call'd so by1 1.358 Ignati••••, as well as St. Iohn.2 1.359 Constantin•• the Great renew'd and re∣vived this Name (which some had laid aside) and caused the Day to be constantly known and call'd by that Ap∣pellation, and by3 1.360 Edict commanded it to be solemnly kept by all Persons. The short is, both in the Apostles

times (as the Scripture informs us) and in all succeeding Ages, this Day hath been unanimously observed by Chri∣stians, as being of Evangelical Appointment. Thus the Gospel may be said to add to the Law in some New Par∣ticulars, Christ hath introduced some things peculiar and proper to the state of Christians. But there were the same Constitutions before under the Law in general. There were two Sacraments, the one to admit Infants into the Church, the other to confirm the Adult. There were Laws of Ecclesias••ical Discipline, there was a Time set apart for Divine Worship.

Prop. 2. All those things which our Saviour forbids or commands in the Gospel, are comprehended in the Law, if not expresly, yet virtually, and by true consequence and rational deduction. Thus Killing being forbidden, An∣ger and Wrath which stir up Mens blood, and cause them to thirst after the blood of others, are forbidden. So Christ in his Sermon on the Mount lets them know (as I shall shew you anon) that not only this, but many 〈◊〉〈◊〉 things were included and contained in the Moral Law, which they acted contrary to, foolishly imagining that they were to go no further, than the bare Letter of the Law.

Prop. 3. The Commandments and Duties of the Old and of the New Testament are the same as to Substance, tho they differ as to Manner and Circumstances. The Faith of the Saints under the Legal Appointment, and of those under the Evangelical one, is (as hath been shew'd before) the very same as to the main, only they differ as to their Relation or Aspect, the one to Christ who was then to come, the other to him already come. So pray∣ing to Christ, relying on the mercy of Christ, desiring to depart and be with him, and the like Duties which seem to be new, are so only in respect of the foresaid Relation or Manner. The Messias expected, and the Messias come, solve the difference.

Prop. 4. As the Dispensation of the Law and the Gos∣pel

(being the same in Substance) differ as to the Man∣ner, so they differ likewise as to the Degrees. Humili∣ty, and that which we call Christian Liberty, are reckon'd by a4 1.361 Learned Writer as New Duties introduced by Christ. But I conceive the Substance of these was be∣fore; they are only more Improved and Inhanced by our Blessed Lawgiver Christ Iesus. And this you shall see is made good of several other••r Duties mention'd by our Saviour in his Sermon on the Mount. He hath made them more perfect than they were: and therefore in re∣spect of them the Gospel is stiled a Perfect Law, Jam. 1. 25. Thus I have bri••fly shew'd you how there are New Laws and Duties added by Christ, and how, not. Some few Particulars are New, because the new State of things required it. Others may be said to be New, because they are more Expresly set down, or in respect of Circumstances, Manner, and Degrees. But still they are not New, but the same in the general, besides that they are virtually the same, and as to the main, and in the Substance of them.

It is scarcely worth taking notice what5 1.362 Episcopius suggests, viz. that there is no express Precept in the Law for Praying unto God, and consequently it was n••t a Duty required in the Old Testament, and therefore is a new Commandment of Christ. In which (as in some other things) he agrees with the6 1.363 Socinians, but is there∣in very palpably mistaken, for there are set Forms of Prayer enjoin'd in the Old Testament: there are deter∣minate Expressions dictated there. Most of the Psalms are Prayers; and particular Prayers of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Daniel are recorded. Praying is exp••esly com∣manded in Psal. 50. 15. Call upon me in the day of

trouble. The Temple was call'd the House of Prayer, Isa. 67. 7. and Prayers were mix'd with all the Sacrifi∣ces, as appears from Luke 1. 10. How then can any Man have the confidence to say that Prayer is a New Testament Precept only?

But here it may be alledged that Love is call'd a New Commandment both by our Saviour (Ioh. 13. 34.) and by St. Iohn (1 Epist, chap. 2. ver. 8.) therefore there is this Commandment at least added anew by Christ to what was before. I will reply to this, by explaining to you how Love may be said to be a New Commandment. 1. I have suggested before that it may be call'd New because of the New Motive annex'd to it in Iohn 13. 34. A New Commandment I give unto you that ye love one ••no∣ther, as I have loved you. This latter Clause is New, tho the former be Old. This is one Reason which a 7 1.364 Learned Writer gives why Love is call'd a New Com∣mandment. 2. Another is because it was Ren••wed by Christ, and urged on his Disciples afresh as their particu∣lar badg. A New Commandment give I unto you that ye love one another, said our Saviour to his Apostles that night when he celebrated the Passover with them, and instituted the Holy Sacrament of his Body and Blood, and when he was taking his leave of them and the World: Now he seasonably presses what he had exhor∣ted them to before, now he calls upon them more espe∣cially to exercise the Grace of Love. Thus it is a New Commandment because Christ repeats it anew. 3. Be∣cause Christ vindicated it (as you shall hear more by and by) from the false Glosses of the Pharisees, and so made it as it were New. They thought that Love was due only to those that were their Neighbours and Bre∣thren, and that ••ll who injured them were to be hated; but our Saviour tells them they must love their Enemies,

he acquaints them that Iews as well as Christia•••• were obliged to this Duty▪ that the Law required i•• as well as the Gospel. This was a new Notion to the Pha∣risees and Jewish Doctors, and therefore on that account Christ might say this was a New Commandment. 4. Al∣tho the same Love of Neighbours was commanded un∣der the Law that is our Duty under the Gospel, yet the same Height of Love was not required then that is now; therefore it is call'd a New Commandment. This is in∣timated in that place of St. Iohn, 1 Epist. Chap. 2. ver. 8. A New Commandment I write ••nto you, which thing is true in him and in you (i. e. as I conceive, this Love is elevated to its greatest height by our Saviour, this ex∣alted Charity was verified and exemplified in Christ, who died for us his E••emies) because the darkness is past, and the true Light now shineth, i. e. Christianity now prevails, and is in full force; and, among all its Laws▪ this of Love is the most advanced and sublimated, it never was at such a high pitch before; there are greater degrees of it now than there ever were under the Law. But still this is to be said, the Precept of Love was part of the Moral Law, and obliged Per••ons in all Dispensati∣ons, and therefore is justly call'd an Old Comman••∣ment.

CHAP. XII.

An Answer to an Objection from Mat. 5. 17. shewing distinctly and particularly what is the Law, and how Christ came to fulfil it. It is held by some that Christ came to add New Pre∣cepts to the Moral Law. In confutation of which Opinion it is proved that Anger is for∣bid by the Decalogue. So is a Lustful Eye. So is all Rash and Prophane Swearing. So is Divorce, unless in the case of Adultery. So is Resisting of Evil. So is hating of our Ene∣mies. It is largely discuss'd whether it was lawful for the Israelites to hate the seven Na∣tions whom they were commanded to destroy. And whether the Command to destroy them was Absolute. Objections from Deut. 13. 8, 9. & Psal. 139. 21. answer'd. The Nature of the Two Covenants, viz. of Works and of Grace, fully stated. The Conditions on our part. How [do this, and live] is applicable to the Covenant of Grace. The Covenant made with the Israelites at the giving of the Law on Mount Sinai was the Covenant of Grace, though it seem'd to resemble the Covenant of Works. The Covenant of Grace was completed and perfected by Christ's Coming, and not be∣fore. The Mediator, the Terms, the Seals of this Covenant now fully manifested. It is proved that according to the Stile of Scripture the Old and New Covenant are the same Co∣venant of Grace.

BUt our Saviour's words in Mat. 5. 17. are made use of by many to confront, and (as they think) to con∣fute this Doctrine. They maintain that there is a far greater difference between the Precepts of the Old and New Testament than I have asserted, and that Christ not only explained those Old Laws, but added New Ones to them, for that (say they) is the meaning of Christ's words in that place, Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Because these words and the rest of the Chapter which follows them, are alledged with great earnestness by the Patrons of this Opinion, and because they boast that they are an irrefragable Proof of what they say, I will inlarge upon them, and faithfully present you with the true meaning of them, which you will ••ee is so far from Patronizing their Cause, that it overthroweth it, and layeth it in the dust. To explain these words then,

1st. By the Law and the Prophets is meant whatever is contain'd in the Writings of Moses or of the other Pro∣phets of the Old Testament (for the whole Scripture of the Old Testament is summed up in these two, the Law and the Prophets) but especially what is contain'd in them concerning the Messias, his Person, his Underta∣kings, and his Kingdom. Now, Christ was so far from destroying, baffling and nulling of these, that he came to fulfil them, i. e. by his Coming he verified, made good and accomplished whatever was foretold or promis'd concerning him in the Writings of Moses and the Prophets. Thence it is that you so often read in the New Testament that such and such things came to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by this or that Prophet. Christ came to perform and bring into Act, whatever was prophesied in those Antient Writings con∣cerning him: and here in ver. 18. he assured his Disci∣ples

and Hearers, that one jot or one tittle should in no wise pass from the Law till all be fulfill'd.

2ly. When our Saviour saith he came not to destroy but to fulfil the Law, even the Ceremonial Law may be com∣preh••nded here. And that he came not to destroy this, but to fulfil it, is true in these two senses, First, this Law as far as it concern'd our Saviour was obeyed and prac∣tis'd by him; that may be the meaning of fulfilling. He was Circumcised the eighth day, he was presented in the Temple, and made his Offering there. When he entred on his Ministry, he exactly complied with the Mosaick Injunctions, for he took not that Employment till he was thirty Years of age, the very time when the Iewish Priests ent••ed on their Function according to the Law. But yet more punctually he fulfilled the Law in keeping the Passover; for whereas the Iews by their Traditions had corrupted the Law concerning the Observation of this Feast, and kept it not till the fifteenth day of the Month, our Saviour kept it th•• day before, viz. on the1 1.365 four∣teenth, and so observed the true time which was com∣manded by God at first, Exod. 12. Thus Christ came to fulfil even the Ceremonial Law, and that with the great∣est exactness. On this account he saith himself, it became him to fulfil all righteousness, Mat. 3. 15. Secondly, Christ fulfilled t••e Ceremonial Law as he accomplished the Types and Figures of it. Most of the Iudaical Ceremonies and Rites (as I have proved) shadowed forth the Messi∣as, they repres••nted some considerable thing which be∣longed to his Kingdom. Therefore when the Messias came, and did acco••ding to what was prefigured of him, those Ceremonies and Types were fulfil'd. Christ who was the Substance and Consummation of those Sh••dows, f••lly perfected what was before represented and signified by them.

3ly. When our Saviour faith he came not to destroy the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfil them, it is meant also of the Moral Precepts contain'd in the Wri∣tings of Moses and the Prophets. These are they which are called Commandments, ver. 19. and the observance of them is stiled Righteo••sness, ver. 20. and the ••ollow∣ing verses refer (as I shall shew you) to the injunctions of the D••calogu••. Christ came not to destroy this Law, for he never in the least countenanced the violation of it in any person. But he came to fulfil it, i. e. 1. To Ob∣serve and Obey it, and that first in his own Person: He inviolably kept the Law himself, he most strictly obser∣ved both the Tables of it all his Life. Again, he obliged others to keep and obey this Law: He always inculcated the use and necessity of it in Mens Lives. 2. He came to fulfil it, i. e. to teach Men to observe the Full Design and Vtmost Intent of the Moral Law. This is first clear from the Context, ver. 19. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least Commandments, shall be called least in the kingdom of Heaven, i. e. he shall be a very despised and contemptible Person under the Christian O••conomy who shall diminish any of the Precepts of the Moral Law. They must be taken one with another. The Decalogue is full and comprehensive. Anger as well as Murder is prohibited in the Sixth Commandment: and so in the rest the full Virtue and Extent of the Law are to be ob∣serv'd. And not only he that breaks the least of these Commandments, but he that teacheth men so to do, (as it follows in that verse) shall be called the least, &c. he shall not be reckon'd a person fit for the Evangelical Ad∣ministration, he is a piti••ul narrow contracted Soul. Such are the Scribes and Phari••ees, and the great Doc∣tors of the Law, they cramp the Decalogue, they rest in the Letter and Surface of it, and remember not what David saith, that2 1.366 the Commandments are exceeding

broad. But I say unto you, saith our Saviour, except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of Heaven, ver. 20. And then in the remai∣ning part of the Chapter our Saviour proceeds to ac∣quaint his hearers particularly how these. Scribes and Pha∣risees, and those from whom they receiv'd their Notions, had mistaken the true meaning of the Law, and had per∣verted the genuine Sense of it by their false Glosses and Interpretations.

But not only the Context but this very word it self which is here used, leads us to this thing which I am now offering to you. The known and common signi∣fication of the3 1.367 Greek word which is rendred to fulfil, is to accomplish a thing fully, to bring it to Perfection. The word is properly used when a Man doth as much as he can, and acts his best. Thus the Apostle saith of him∣self, I have fully preached the Gospel of Christ, Rom. 15. 19. It is the same word which our Saviour useth here, when he saith he came to fulfil the Law. How did St. Paul fulfil the Gospel of Christ? He labour'd abun∣dantly than the rest of the Apostles, he travel'd from place to place, from Ierusalem and round about unto Illy∣ricum (as he saith in the same verse) he went his Circuit, he took extraordinary pains wheresoever he came, he was careful to instruct people in all the necessary Doctrines of Christianity, and to keep back nothing from them. Thus he fulfilled, or fully preached the Gospel. And this is the sense of the word in other places of the New Testament. You will find4 1.368 our Saviour himself, and his 5 1.369 Apostles and others applying this word to such things as are fully Accomplished, and are become entire and com∣pleat. And so here Christ saith he came to fulfil the

Law, the Precepts of the Moral Law dispers'd up and down in the Books of Moses and the Prophets, and sum∣marily comprehended in the Ten Commandments; he came to fulfil these not only by representing them to us Intire and Perfect, by giving us a full and compleat account of them, but by supplying them and filling them up when they were diminish'd and impaired by the corrupt Glosses of the Iewish Doctors. So that there are no New Commandments added by Christ, but some of the Old ones which were corrupted, and others which were quite taken away, are renewed and restored, and so the Body of Commandments and Moral Precepts is perfected and consummated. This is to fulfil: this is the plain and obvious sense of the word, so far as I apprehend.

But others understand it thus, Christ came to fulfil the Law, i. e. to add some New Moral Precepts to it, which were no part of the Law before, to increase the number of the Commandments, and thus (in a sense dif∣ferent from what was allowed before) to fill up the Law. Accordingly they hold that our Saviour in the fifth Chap∣ter of St. Matthew is a New Lawgiver, and commands things which were not commanded before. Christ, say they, opposed to Moses's Moral Precepts some New and Contrary Precepts of his own, as about Swearing, and Divorce, &c. Some of the5 1.370 Fathers were of this judg∣ment, or at least have utter'd some words which favour it. But it is not to be denied that the Papists generally, as also the Socinians expresly hold this. These6 1.371 latter follow their Master Socinus, who in his Explication of the 5th Chapter of St. Matthew interprets 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the foresaid Sense, and tells us that Christ's Sermon con∣tains New Precepts which never were before. Some

Antinomians and Anabaptists (not to mention some o∣thers) plainly assert this, and that with much concer∣nedness. These all hold that Christ fulfil'd or perfected the Law not only by a clearer Explication of the Precepts of it, but by an Addition of New Precepts. And this indeed follows on what was asserted by them before, viz. that Christ's Laws in Matth. 5. are opposed to Moses's. If there be an opposition, then that is injoin'd in one which is not in the other, then Christ added to what was commanded by Moses.

But all this is a mistake: for the Opposition which is observable in Mat. 5. is quite of another kind. Christ there opposeth himself to the Scribes and Pharisees, and his Interpretation of the Law to theirs. In this man∣ner he speaks, Ye have heard is hath been said of the7 1.372 An∣tients, or (as we translate it) those of old time, Thou shalt not do this or that; you attend to the sayings of the An∣tient Iewish Doctors, who are the Persons that have per∣verted the Law: and you tread in their steps, you es∣pouse their Opinions, you have learnt of them to misin∣terpret and corrupt the Law, for you interpret those Commandments, Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not com∣mit Adultery, of the outward Act only of Killing and of Adultery; and you will not believe that Hatred and Ma∣lice are forbidden by the same Commandment which for∣bids Murder, or that a lustful Eye is a breach of the Com∣mandment against Adultery: and so in other instances you miserably mistake and corrupt the Law. This is the sense of our Saviour in this Chapter. And hence it is plain that here is no such thing as New Precepts, or any kind of Commands contrary to those that were given by Moses. We do not hear Christ say, it hath been said by Moses, or you read it in the Law, but it hath been said by them of old; he quotes the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Antients,

i. e. the Masters of Tradition, the Scribes and Doctors of the Law, whom the Phari••ees at that day followed. These wilfully mistook and depraved the Moral Law, and our Saviour sets himself against these, and their Doctrine. He doth not oppose one Law to another, but all that he doth is this, he corrects and amends the Law as it was corrupted by the Scribes and Pharisees; or rather, he doth not correct and amend Moses's Law, but the Pha∣ri••ees Expositions. In this Chapter Christ is not a Le∣giflator, but an Interpreter, He expounds the Law a∣••ight, and takes off their false Expositions: and gives the true and genuine sense of the Law. He acquaints them that there is a farther meaning of it than they ima∣gined: more is commanded in the Pr••cepts of the Law, and more is forbidden than they think. And to convince them throughly of this he proceeds to particulars, instan∣cing in some Duties which seem to be New and Proper only to Christianity; but he acquaints them that they are not New, but Old Commandments: and so likewise he instances in some Actions which are unlawful under the Gospel, and seem to have been made so first of all by the Christian Laws: but the design of this Discourse is to let them know that they were forbidden by Moses, and were sins long before the Coming of Christ, al••ho by them of Old (the Antient Depravers of the Law) they were not thought to be so.

1. Anger is Murder by the Christian Law, and so it was by the Law of the Ten Commandments. Ye have heard that it was said by the Antients, Thou shalt not kill (restraining this to the External Act only) and whoso∣ever shall kill, shall be in d••nger of the judgment. But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his Brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment, he is interpretatively a Man-••layer; Ver. 21, 22. You are to know that tho Imm••derate Anger be not in express terms forbidden in the Law, yet it is inclusively and by just Consequence forbidden. Of Cain it is recorded that

he was very wroth, Gen. 4. 5. and wer read the Result of it, ver. 8. Cain rose up against Abel his Brother, and slew him. Wrath is the Parent of Murder. He that is excessively incens'd against another is disposed to kill him: and i•• this inordinate Passion be not check'd, or some obstacle interpose, it will proceed to that height. Therefore if Bloodshed be a sin, Anger is so too, and ought to be suppress'd, with the ordinary concomitant of it, viz. using of reviling Language, as Raca, Fool, and the like.

2. An Vnchast Heart, and a Lustful Eye are Adulte∣ry and Fornication by the Law of Christ, and they were no less by the Mosaick Law. And therefore when Christ faith, ver. 28. Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed Adultery already with her in his heart, he doth not declare this as a thing contrary to what the Precepts of Morality require of us, but to what had been dictated by the corrupt Glosses of the Jewish Doctors of old, and of the Pharisees at that time, viz. that there is no such thing as the Adultery of the Eye or of the Heart, and that these are not forbidden in the Seventh Commandment. But our Saviour lets them know that this is a great mistake, and that he had not in∣troduced a New Law, but only revived an old One. To look on a woman to lust after her, was always sinful and unlawful. I made a Covenant with mine Eyes, (saith Job) why then should I think upon a maid? Chap. 31. ver. 1. which argues that it was a sin in those times (even before there was any written Law) to indulge ei∣ther lustful Thoughts or Looks. And this I take to be the Reason of the Law of Fringes given to the Jews, Num. 15. 38, 39. viz. that these being constantly in their view might be a means to divert their thoughts as well as sight; for so 'tis expresly said, that they were to entertain their Eyes with looking on them, that they might not seek after their own Heart, and their own Eyes, after w••ich they used to go a whoring. We read afterwards,

that it was the Pious King's Prayer, Turn away mine eyes from beholding va••ity, Psal. 119. 37. And that there is a Restraint to be laid upon this outward Sense, and upon the inward Imagination which is wrought upon by it, is the acknowledgment of the Wisest He••rew Doctors, among whom it is proverbially said,8 1.373 the Eye is the In∣let to sin; and R. Ben. Mai••on saith expresly9 1.374 that evil Thoughts were forbid by the L••w.

3. Swearing rashly is forbidden here by Christ, and so it was by the Third Commandment. But this (as well as the other) was misinterpreted by the Scribes and Doc∣tors, and not understood in its full Extent. Whereupon our Saviour corrects their mistakes, saying, Swear not at all, neither by Heaven, &c. ver. 34. As much as if he had said, you make nothing of Swearing by Heaven, and by the Earth, and by Ierusalem, and by your Heads, and this is a very common and frequent thing with you; and you are perswaded that you act not amiss in doing thus, for you think that the Commandment forbids only False Swearing and Perjury: you have been told that these are the only breach of that part of the Law. But I tell you another thing, that Law forbids not only False but Rash Swearing; you violate that Commandment as often as you use any vain and unnecessary Oaths, as often as you prophanely swear by God's Name, as often as you make use of other Names besides God's to swear by, as often as you swear by Heaven, or by the Earth, &c. This is the true meaning of our Saviour here. Some have thought that all Swearing is forbid in this place by Christ, as unlawful under the Gospel, altho it was lawful to Swear under the Law: but if you consider that it is a Religious Act, and is innocent and harmless in its own nature, and sometimes becomes necessary (as in matters

of Controversie which can't otherwise be decided) and is an Act of Charity and Righteousness (when it is for the real advantage of the Community, or any of our particu∣lar Brethren, and sometimes it is) and is approved of by the Example of St. Paul in the New Testament, you will be induced to believe that Religious Swearing is lawful even under the Gospel, and that there is no New Law given by Christ to forbid it now. That which he forbids is Unnecessary and Prophane Swearing; yea moreover, he commands you to avoid all Swearing in common intercourse and converse one with another, and as much as lies in them to abstain wholly from an Oath. He would have them to be Persons of so holy and strict lives, of such integtity and faithfulness, that no one should have occasion to require an Oath of them, but that they might be credited upon their bare Words and Promises. He would have them shew such Truth and Honesty to∣wards Men, that Swearing might become useless. This is the true meaning of our Saviour.

4. That a Man should not put away his Wife unless for Fornication or Adultery, is a Law of Christ, and yet is no New Law, but an Old one Restored and Renewed by him. This Law was corrupted by the Jews, which Malachi takes notice of, Mal. 2. 14, 15, 16. and he brings them back to the Primitive Law of Moses, Chap. 4. ver. 4. So that our Saviour doth the same which the Prophet Malachi did before. And as to the Law of Di∣vorce in Deut. 24. 1. it was rather a Permission than a Precept or Law: and so saith Christ, Moses suffer'd you for the hardness of your hearts to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so, Mat. 19. 8. This way of divorcing among the Jews was unlawful, being against the Institution of God in the beginning, Gen. 2. 24. They two shall be one flesh. But it was tolerated to avoid a greater Evil among that People, viz. that curst Hus∣bands might not use their Wives inhumanely: It was for the sake of the Women that this was permitted. There∣fore

it is clear that Christ doth not correct or alter the Law, but only removes the false Interpretations which were made of it. That Matrimony cannot be dissolv'd, is a Christian Law, and it was also a Mosaick one.

5. Resisting of Evil, or Retaliating is ••orbid by our Saviour in this Chapter, ver. 38, 39. and yet it is no New Commandment, but such as was obligatory under the Law. Publick Retaliation or Revenge, viz. in a lawful way, by the Authority and Help of the Magistrate (who is an Avenger of Evil, and appointed for that pur∣pose) is intended by the Law, An Eye for an Eye, a Tooth for a T••••th; but the Iewish Interpreters of it stretched this even to the patronizing of private Revenge, and returning Evil for Evil among themselves. This is that which our Lord here complains of, as a gross per∣verting of the sense of the Law: and he peremptorily commands his Followers that they resist not evil, that if any one smit•• them on the right check they turn to him the other also; and that if any tak•• away their Coat, they let him have their Cl••••k also, ver. 39, 40. By which he declareth against the Law of Retaliation among them∣selves, without going to the Magistrate, whose Revenge is. Christ bids them rather suffer wrong than revenge it so. Now▪ this private Revenge you will find ••orbid∣den by Moses's Law long before, and consequently it is no New Law. In Lev. 19. 18. Moses expresly forbids it; and the unlawfulness of it may be gather'd from1 1.375 o∣ther places of the Old Testament. If it be objected that these words of Sampson authorize private Revenge, As they did unt•• me, so have I done unto them, Judg. 15. 11. I Answer, he did it not as a private Man, but as a Judg, a Magistrate, a publick Person. Besides, he was divine∣ly inspired, and extraordinarily 〈◊〉〈◊〉 up, which is a dif∣ferent case from ours. Thu•• Sampson called unto the Lord

that he might be avenged of the Philistines, Judg. 16. 28. This Revenge then is not that which was spoken of in the places before cited, and which our Saviour here speaks against, and which St. Paul forbad, when he left those Evangelical Rules with the Roman Christians, Recom∣pence to no Man Evil for Evil: Avenge not your selves, Rom. 12. 17, 19. The S••cinians then and some o∣thers who say Revenge was lawful under the Old Testa∣ment, but is not now under the New, speak very unadvi∣sedly and rashly, and have no ground at all to make this Distinction: for the Writings of the Old Testament as well as of the New, condemn all private Revenge and Resisting of Evil.

6. Loving our Enemi••s is another Command of Christ, ver. 44. and it was always a Command of the Second Table, tho the Iewish Expositors of it thought not so. Mark therefore our Saviour's words, Ye have heard that it hath been said, viz. by them of Old, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thy enemy, ver. 43. Whence it is evident, that Christ both here and in the verses before mentioned, speaks not of what M••ses and the Law it self said, but of what the corrupt Doctors and Scribes said. For tho Moses saith, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, Lev. 19. 18. yet he no where saith, Thou shalt hate thy enemy. Therefore we may conclude, that when∣ever Christ uttereth these words in this Chapter, It hath been said by them of old time, he understands not Moses and the Prophets, but the perverse Teachers among the Iews who falsly expounded them. Moses's Law bid them love their Neighbours, but it was their own false Inference that they should hate their Enemies, I say un∣to you, therefore saith Christ (and I say no more than what was the Duty even of those who lived under Mo∣ses's Laws) Love your Enemies, do good to them that hate you, ver. 44. That this was a Duty before Christ's Com∣ing is proved from Exod. 23. 4, 5. If thou meet thine enemies Ox or his Ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring

it back to him again. If thou see the Ass of him that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 thee, lying under his burden, and would•••• forbear t•• ••elp him, thou shalt surely help with him. Tho it is true the doing of these things were kindnesses to the Beasts, yet they were also offices of kindness to the Persons who owned them: which sheweth that the L••ve of Enemie•• was required then. Which may likewise be inter'd from those general words in Lev. 19. 17. Thou shalt not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 thy Brother in thy heart, thou shalt not hate him be he Friend or Fo, Native or Alien: every one is thy Bro∣ther, and therefore thou must use him as such. And that these words of Moses are to be taken thus largely, is manifest from what he saith in Deut. 23. 7. Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy Brother: nay, it is added for the same reason, Thou shalt not abhor an Egyp∣tian; tho thou wert made a Bondslave by that People, yet thou must not hate them; yea, being thy Br••thren, thou must love them. The words of Solomon are to our present purpose, Prov. 25. 21. If thine En••my be hungry, give him Bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him Water to drink, i. e. in his distress and extremity entertain him courteously and lovingly, tho he hath not deserved such usage at thy hands. That Enemies were to be loved is to be gather'd from that Instance of Elisha, who advised the King of Isra••l to feast and plenteously entertain the Syrians, who had besieged Samaria, and to send them away in peace, 2 Kings 6. 22, 23. Thus we see that even under the Law they were to be kind and loving to their En••mies, and that not only if they were Enemies among themselves, i. e. if they were Isr••••letes, but they were to shew the like affection to Strangers and Foreigners who had shew'd Enmity and Hostility against them.

But here we are to encounter a very formidab••e Ob∣jection, viz. that it was lawful for the Isra••lites to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Idol••••rous Nations, which a••pears from this that they were commanded to kill them. As for the Seven Na∣tions,

who possess'd that Land which was promis'd to them, they were enjoin'd to destroy them utterly with∣out all pity. Destroying and Killing are more than Ha∣tred: If therefore they might kill and destroy those Hea∣thens, they might hate them. How then was the Lo∣ving of Enemies a Duty under the Law? To this I An∣swer, that to make peac•• (and that sincerely and cordial∣ly) with Persons or People, and to bear hatred to them at the same time, are inconsistent: and therefore if I prove that the Israelites would have made peace with those Se∣ven Nations, it will follow that there was no Hatred in the case. I know that some Writers of no mean Rank assert that the Cana••nites were utterly and absolutely to be slain, and that the Peace to be offered was to them only who were without the Land of Canaan. But this is a very great over••ight, and I will from plain passages i•• the Sacred History shew that it is so, and convince any Im∣partial Reader that the Israelites offer'd Peace to the Ca∣••aanites as well as to other Nations farther off. I will first produce those words in Deut. 20. 10, &c. which seem to make against this, When thou comest nigh unto a City, to fight against it, then proclaim Peace unto it: and if it make answer of Peace, all the Peop••e that are in it shall be Tributaries. But if it will make no Peace, then thou shalt bes••ege it; and when God hath delivered it into thy hands, thou shalt smite every Male with the edg of the sword, but the Women and Children and Cat∣tel thou shalt take to thy self. Thus shalt thou do to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the Cities of these Nations. But of the Cities of the Peo∣ple which the Lord doth give thee for an Inherita••ce, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth, but thou shalt u••∣terly destroy them. Whence some would infer that no Proc••amation of Peac•• was to be made to the Cities of Canaan, for they were utt••rly to be destroyed. But you must know that the words are Conditional, and are to be supplied thus, thou shalt save alive nothing that breath∣eth,

but thou shalt utterly destroy them unless they seek for Peace, or attend to the Offers of it, unless they en∣gage to become Tributary, and unless they renounce their Idolatry: for tho these Conditio••s be not express'd in the 16, & 17 verses, yet the two first are mention'd in ver. 11. and all three are intimated or express'd in other pla∣ces of M••ses's History.

First, that the Israelites might make Peace with the Canaanites if they sought for it, is express'd in ver. 11. If any City made answer to them of Peace, and opened to them, they were to make Peace with them. But some say that this was the manner of the Israelites treating the Nations a••ar off, but not the Canaanites; for this vast difference which was to be made between them is set down in ver. 15, 16. Thus shalt thou do to all the Ci∣ties which are very far off, but of the Cities of these 〈◊〉〈◊〉 which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheri∣tance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. Here it seems to be said that tho the Distant Nations were to be favourably used, and admitted to Terms of Peace, yet the Cities of Canaan and others which were near, were to be denied that favour, and to be utterly cut off with∣out mercy. But these apprehensions arise from the mis∣applying of those words, thus shalt thou do, which prin∣cipally refer to what immediately went before, viz. that when God hath delivered a City into their hands, they shall smite ••very Male thereof with the sword, but spare the Women and the little Ones, and the Cattel. Thus shall they do unto them. But when they came to any Ci∣ty of the Seven Nations, they were to deal otherwise, they were to spare neither Man nor Woman, Old or Young, but utterly to destroy all. Here lies the Antithe∣sis, this was the grand difference which was to be made between their dealing with the F••reig•• Nations and with the Canaanites. This is all the distinction that they were to make between the one and the other. Whereas the one is to be spared in some sort, thou shalt shew no

••uch favour to the other: thou shalt devote them to ut∣ter Destruction. But it is not said, thou shalt not offer Peace to them first, thou shalt fall upon them without any warning. No: the contrary is said, When thou com∣est nigh to a City to fight against it, then proclaim Peace unto it: which kind Tender reacheth not only to the Cities of the Nations afar off, but to those which were nearer. This may be gather'd from other places, as Ios. 11. 19. There was not a City which made Peace with the Children of Israel save the Hivite, the Inhabi∣tants of Gi••eon: all others they took in battel. Which implies that Peace was offer'd to them all, and that their Refusal was the cause of their Ruin: for it would be ridiculous and impertinent (as I apprehend) to register this, that no Cities made Peace, when they could not make Peace if they had had a mind to it.

As to the Instance of the Gibeonites, Ioshua was faul∣ty in making Peace with them rashly, without enqui∣ring who they were, and whence. But as to the thing it self, he was not faulty, for they had leave to make Peace not only with the People that were remote (and such they took these to be) but with the Canaanites. But these Gibe••nites had heard that they were to be most se∣verely dealt with, that they were to be utterly destroy'd upon refusal; therefore they seign'd themselves to be of the remoter Nations. What can be more evident than this, that the Command of destroying the Canaanites was not Absolute but Conditional, seeing the Oath made to the Gibe••nites (who were Canaanites) was lawful? which may be proved from this, that God was angry, with Saul for the violation of this Oath several years af∣ter. Now, if it was lawful to swear to the Gibeonites (tho it was extorted by fraud and dissembling) that they should be spared, then it follows that there was no Com∣mand from God to destroy them, without offering Peace and Mercy to them. We read also that Rahab requested of the Spies that she might be spared; and they would

not have sworn to her that they would Save her and her Fathers house alive (as they did, Ios. 2. 12.) if they had known that there was no mercy to be shew'd to the Canaanites: but it is plain that they were apprehensive of the contrary, and so engaged to spare Rahab and her Kin∣dred. And if the whole People of Ierich•• had humbly requested the same Boon, they might have obtain'd it, for the Israelites were not bid to destroy any People unless they were obstinate and refractory. On such considerations as these1 1.376 One of the most Judicious and Discerning Writers among the Iews, declares it to be his Opinion that the Seven N••tions had offers of Peace, on condition they would surrender themselves.

Again, that Clause (which contains the Second Condi∣tion offer'd to all Cities) belonged to the Seven Nations as well as to the rest, viz. All the People that is found therein shall be Tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee, ver. 11. of Deut. 20. If the Canaanites would have owned the Israelites for their Lords and Masters, they might have escaped Destruction. Which is the im∣port of those words in Ios. 16. 10. They drave not out the Canaanite that dwelt in G••zer, but the Canaanite dwelleth among the Ephraimites unto this day, and serveth under Tribute. And the same you read in Iosh. 17. 13. & Iudg. 1. 29, 30. The Third Condition was this, the Iews might make Peace with the Seven Nations if they would turn to the True God of Israel from their Ido∣latry, as appears from Deut. 7. 3, 4. Thou shalt make no Marriages with them, thy Daughter thou shalt not give to his Son, nor his Daughter shalt thou take unto thy Son, (which by the by, you may observe, supposes that they should not all be destroyed) for they will turn away thy Son from following me, that they may serve other Gods.

This is given as the Reason here and in other places why those Nations were to be destroyed, viz. because of their abominable Idolatry, and that they might not Corrupt and Infect the People of God. Therefore the Israelites are often forbid to2 1.377 make a Covenant with them, which signifies to hold Correspondence with them in Idolatry, to make such a League and Alliance with them as to suffer them to use their Altars and Images, and freely to in∣dulge them in their former Abominations.

The short then is, that Conditions of Peace were offer'd to all the Nations foreign and near, their Lives were gi∣ven them if they would ask them: they might be spared if they would become Tributary: they were not to be cut off if they would turn from their Idolatry to the Li∣ving God, and embrace the Jewish Religion, or (as the Hebrews tell us) keep the Precepts of the Sons of No∣ah. But the Israelites had a Commission to fight all Na∣tions that refused these Conditions, they had a Com∣mand to ••lay them either with a universal Slaughter, viz, the Seven Nations and the Amalekites, or only to destroy the males, as they did to the other Nations. Now if this be the Truth of the Case, if the Israelites were willing to make Peace with All, both Canaanites and Foreigners (as I have endeavour'd to evince, and as several3 1.378 Learned Men have asserted) then the Objecti∣on which is pretended to be drawn from the Practice of the Israelites, and from the very Command of God, falls to the ground, and is of no value and weight: then it appears that the Israelites were not bid to hate their Enemies, but that they were to love them, for of∣fering Conditions of Peace was a Sign and Token of Love.

But suppose I have not sufficiently proved what I un∣dertook

(which I refer to the Judicious); suppose the seven Nations had no Terms of Peace offer'd them, but they were utterly abolished; yet then I see not how this any ways invalidateth my former Assertion, for they might be commanded to kill all the Canaanites, and yet not be commanded to hate them: nor doth it fol∣low from their killing them, that they bore a hatred to them. Judges and Executioners punish Malefactors with Death, but without Hatred and Malice; or they ought to do so at least.

This Answer will serve to take off other Objections which are made, as that from the 13th of Deuteronomy, where you read that all Persons who inticed others to Idolatry, were to be put to death, and the nearest Rela∣tion or Friend was not to be pitied or spared. There∣fore if no kindness was to be shew'd to Kindred and near Relatives in this case, much less was there any to be extended to Enemies, and consequently it was law∣ful to hate them. And from the Law of Retaliation they would argue after the same manner, viz. that God commanded the Iews to hate those who wronged and hurted them; for if they were bid to punish them, they were bid to hate them, the greater containing in it the lesser. But the answer to these Cavils is the same which I gave before: the Iews might prosecute Offenders, and the Magistrate punish them, and both might and ought to be done with commiseration and love, and conse∣quently without hatred. Indeed they were not to pity them, i. e. so as to let them go unpunish'd, but not∣withstanding that they might have a brotherly compas∣sion toward their Souls. So we at this day are bound, by Law and Conscience, to prosecute Malefactors, and to cause them to receive condign Punishment; yet all this may be done without hatred, and it is a wonder that the Object••rs have not seen it.

Others make use of those words of David, Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? I hate them with

perfect hatred, Psal. 139. 21, 22. Therefore, say they, hating of Enemies was lawful under the Old Dispensa∣tion of the Law; and by consequence when Christ bids us love our Enemies, he gives a New Law. I answer briefly, that David's hating of the Wicked is meant, 1. of his hating their Company and Conversation; therefore he frequently declareth how loathing and de∣testable it was to him to associate with them. 2. Of his hatred of their Vices, not of their Persons. Their ways and actions he perfectly abhorred, but you hear him sometimes praying for their Conversion, which sheweth that he had no Enmity, either against their Souls or Bodies, but loved both. And indeed if we must love our very Enemies, it follows by natural Con∣sequence, that we ought to pray for them, and wish them well; therefore it is added here by Christ, Ver. 44. Pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you. These are not New Injunctions, but were obliga∣tory under Moses, and are indeed part of the Moral Law. Thus I have shew'd, that even under the Law hating their Enemies, i. e. their Persons, was not lawful, but on the contrary, they were bound to love them: and consequently Christ's Command concerning loving of Enemies, is not added as a New Precept to those of Moses. We must hate no Man now, and it was sinful to do so then. Vniversal Charity was a Law even at that time. In a word, it appears that Christ came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it, because he establish∣ed and confirmed this Catholick Love, which is call'd by the Apostle the fulfilling of the Law, Rom. 13. 9.

Thus I have insisted on the Particulars mentioned by our Saviour in this Chapter, and you may be abun∣dantly convinced thence, that Christ's words here are not oppofed to Moses's, that he doth command no∣thing contrary to the Law, but that he vindicated the Law from the false and corrupt Glosses of the Pharisees; you may be convinced, that Christ is here no New Le∣gislator,

but an Interpreter of the Old Law; that he only explaineth and cleareth it, and more fully deliver∣eth it to the World, and consequently that the Precepts of the Gospel are the same in substance with the Deca∣logue; that Christ enjoineth no New Virtue, as to the kind of it, that he hath made no addition of New Laws and Precepts to the Old ones, unless in those respects which I have before mentioned: and on the account of them it is, that the Legal and Evangelical Dispensation differ so much.

Being now employed in shewing the Difference be∣tween the Old Dispensations before Christ, and that which he introduced; I cannot finish what I intend, unless I particularly handle that noted Question, What is the difference between the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace; or between the Old and New Cove∣nant, and why they are called so? I have said something already which may give light to this, but now I will purposely insist upon it. Indeed the Discourse of the Old and New Cov••nant might have been inserted in the beginning when I enter'd upon the General O••conomy of Grace, when I spoke of the first Discovery made to A∣dam concerning the Mess••as: but then I must have an∣tedated some things which I have mention'd since, and I must have treated of the Evangelical Dispensation long before it came in my way. It is therefore pertinent and most proper to treat of the C••venants in this place, and to shew the true difference between them.

We must call to mind then what I said before, that God covenanted with Man: 1. When he was in the State of Innocence. 2. When he was fallen. The former was the Covenant of W••rks, the latter was the Covenant of Gr••ce. As to the first, it was properly a Covenant▪ for a Covenant is a mutual Agreement be∣twixt

Party and Party, with reciprocal Obligations of each other. So that Covenant was a Contract between God and Adam (and in him with all Mankind,) wherein God promised Everlasting Life and Happiness to Man, if he continued in his Obedience to him. And Man (having a sufficient Ability given him by God) ingaged on his part to perform perfect Obedience, and to persevere in all good Works without sinning, whence it was call'd the Covenant of Works. Upon this Agree∣ment God gave Adam a particular Commandment (as a trial of his Obedience) that he should abstain from the Fruit of a certain Tree in the Garden where God had placed him. But Adam soon broke this Covenant by eating the forbidden Fruit, and so brought a Curse on himself and all his Posterity.

Hereupon the First Convenant, or Covenant of Works, was succeeded by a Second, viz. the Covenant of Grace. This is that Covenant which God made with Adam and his Posterity just after his Fall, when they were in a state of Sin and Misery. Christ was promised forth∣with; the Seed of th•• Woman shall break the Serpent's Head, Gen. 3. 15. As soon as this Promise was given and made, the Covenant of Works expired, then began the Covenant of Grace, and so was in succeeding Gene∣rations more and more revealed, till Christ came and fully revealed it. This is called the Covenant of Grace, (as hath been said before) because it proceeded from mere Grace and Favour, and because a more abundant Grace and Love are discovered in this Covenant for Man's restoring, than in the other for preserving him.

Now a Covenant being a mutual Contract and Stipu∣lation of both Parties (as hath been suggested) this Covenant as well as the other, was made up of some∣thing on God's part, and something on ours. As God is tied to Man, so Man is tied to God. God promised to send his Son to take our Nature, and to make known to us the Will of his Father (thus he is a 〈◊〉〈◊〉), and

also to satisfy God for our Sins, and by this means to redeem us from Hell and Eternal Damnation, and to obtain for us forgiveness of Sins, and the favour of God, and Eternal Life and Blessedness. Sinners are justified, pardoned, and restored to what they lost by 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ they are reinstated in the Right and Privilege they had be∣fore their Apostacy. This is done by Chrrist's Death; thus he is our Priest, he offers himself a Sacrifice for our Sins. Further, he inables us to discharge our Duty, by sending his Holy Spirit into our Hearts; he rules and governs us, and so is our King. This is the Covenant on God's part. On ours it is to hearken diligently to our Prophet, and to be desirous and ready to learn his Will; to accept of, rely upon, and apply unto our selves the meritorious Satisfaction of our Priest; and to be ruled by him as our King, to submit to him, and to obey his Laws; which briefly are these, that we ac∣knowledg his Soveraignty over us, that we believe in him, and that we repent and forsake our Sins. These are the Conditions of the Covenant of Grace on Man's part. Or take the whole in a briefer way thus, To give Ability and Power to believe and repent, and per∣form Acts of Holiness, is the New Covenant on God's part: But personally to do these (by virtue of the fore∣said Power) is the New Covenant on Man's part, which yet God alone can make effectual.

It is said by some, that Faith and Obedience are not the Conditions of this Covenant on Man's part, be∣cause they are promised in the Covenant; for the Condi∣tion of the Covenant must be a distinct thing from the Covenant. But this is a mere Nicety, for tho in the Gospel-Covenant Faith and Repentance are pr••mis••d, i. e. God hath ingaged to give us strength to exert these Graces; yet so far as they are consider'd as our Acts, and coming from 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (for God cannot be said to believe and repent) they are Conditions. They are pro∣mis'd by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 upon 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (as all that we are to do

is promis'd); but since we on our part engage and pro∣mise to do them, they are rightly stiled, and really are Qualifications, without which we shall never partake of the Divine Favour. Neither do these Condition•• of Faith and Obedience which are required of us, hinder the freeness of the Gospel-Grace (as is objected,) for God promised pardon of Sin and Eternal Life freely; and it is the same free Grace which first appointed, and af∣terward accepteth of these Conditions. It is mere Fa∣vour and Good-will that God was pleased to give Salva∣tion and Everlasting Happiness by Christ, on condition of believing and obeying him.

But you will say, it is the Language of the Covenant of Works, Do this, and live; whereas the Gospel saith, Believe, and be saved. I answer, The Covenant of Grace (as well as the Covenant of Works) requires doing, and so in effect saith, Do this, and live: But yet there is this threefold difference between them, (which I request may be well weigh'd, because it will be of sin∣gula•• use to rectify our Notions about the matter in hand, and to give us a true insight into the Nature of the Covenants.)

1. The Covenant of Works saith, Do this by thy own natural strength and power; and if thou dost so, thou shalt live. For this is certain, that in ••he First Covenant the Conditions were to be performed by Adam and Eve (and us in them) by a natural Strength given in the state of Innocency. They were created with a sufficient Power to do what God required of them: By their own Free-Will they might have stood. But the Covenant of Grace saith, Do this by a supernatural As∣sistance, by that Grace which is given through Christ Jesus. No Man is naturally born with an ability to do God's Will, and to please him. There is a new Birth whereby he is impowred to do this; there is a Divine Principle superadded to his Nature, and by virtue of this he believeth, repenteth, &c. This is the first diffe∣rence

between the doing under the Covenant of Works, and under the Covenant of Grace.

2. The Covenant of Works saith, Do this, and for doing thou shalt live: But the Covenant of Grace saith, Do this, and for Christ's Merits and Satisfaction thy do∣ing shall be accepted of God; for his sake thou shalt liv•• and be happy. There is another Cause, you see, viz. the meritorious Righteousness of the Son of God, which makes an infinite difference between the one and the o∣ther. This we must remember, that the Covenant of Grace is that whereby Man is recovered and restored to happiness by the undertakings of another; whereas by virtue of the Covenant of Works, a Man attain'd to Life and Happiness by his own Works and Obedience. His personal Righteousness entitled him to Heaven by the tenour of the first Compact; but now the terms are o∣therwise, that which procures Li••e and Immortality un∣der the Second Covenant, is the Obedience of Christ. There is nothing we can do, that will be acceptable for our own sakes: but on the account of the Messi•••• the Mediator, we and our Services are accepted. The Co∣venant of Works required d••ing, as a p••••formance me∣riting Salvation and Ble••••edness; but this other Agree∣ment exacts of us doing only, as it is the appointed way and means of Salvation. This renders the Diffe∣rence very great and wide between the one and the other.

3. The Covenant of Works ••aith, Do this; but be sure to do it without the least ••ailing and imperfection, and thou shalt liv•• if thou dost it thus, otherwise not. For this Covenant made with Ad•••• and his Posterity, was upon condition of sinless Obedience, as we find by the Consequence; and as we can prove from the Law, which was founded on the Covenant of Works, Cursed is he that continueth not in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 things written in the Book of the Law to do them, D••ut. 27. 26. Universal and entire Obedience is absolutely required. But the Co∣venant

of Grace saith, D•• this; and though it be done on thy part imperfectly, yet thou shalt live. Thou shalt be accepted for the perfect and consummate Righteous∣ness of Christ, altho thy Services be mixed with weak∣ness and sin. The Difference then between the Cov••∣nant of Works, and that of Grac••, is not doing or not doing, keeping or not keeping the Commandments▪ but the Difference is here, the Covenant of Works re∣quireth the keeping the Commandments without sin∣••ing, whereas by the Covenant of Grace no such thing is required. This is the Difference between the Cove∣nants, and thence it is manifest that the latter of them requires not only believing but acting; tho, it is true, believing is the principal thing under the New Covenant, and therefore we find this chiefly urged by our Saviour and his Apostles. Faith is the main thing inculcated in the Writings of the New Testament, and the contrary is that which is mostly laid to mens charge. On this account it is rightly said, that, Believe, and be s••v••••, is the Language of the Covenant of Grace; but yet it is certain, that doing or working is not excluded; for we find in the Evangelical Writings, that both Faith and good Works are made the necessary Conditions in order to Eternal Life: He that believeth shall be saved, Mark 16. 16. Believe on the Lord Iesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, Acts 16. 31. Repent, and be con∣verted, that your sins may be blotted out, Acts 3. 19. Circumcision is nothing, and Vncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the Commandments of God, •• Cor. 7. 19. Without Holiness no Man shall see the Lord, Heb. 12. 14. And many other places of Scripture shew that something is required to be done by us under the New Cov••n••nt: Wherefore we need not be afraid to say, that the Covenant of Grace is •• Law, viz. on this ac∣count, that it commands something to be done. So that one would wonder, that any Men of reason and discourse should assert, and that with much confidence,

that the Gospel is not a Law of Faith and Repentance; and that there is no Sanction, there are no Precepts, no T••r••atnings, no Pr••mises belonging to it, as I find some have lately maintain'd, notwithstanding it is stiled a Law by two Apostles, Heb. 8. 6. Iames 1. 25. And we need not be afraid to say, that there are Conditions propounded, and to be performed under this Covenant. For what is a C••ndition▪ Doth not every one grant that it is such a thing required of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, without the per∣formance of which we shall never obtain the thing offer'd and pr••mis'd? And is not this applicable to the present Case? Are not Faith and Obedience absolutely requir'd antecedently to our enjoying the Benefits and Privileges of the New Covenant that are offer'd to us? Doth not the word Condition express the manner of our partak∣ing the Benefits of the Gospel-Covenant? Doth it not signify that order and disposition of the Divine Grace, which are to be seen in conferring Pardon and Happi∣ness? God hath appointed, that none shall reap this Fruit of the Covenant of Grace, unless they first believe and repent. This is a fix'd and establish'd Order, and without observing and performing of this latter, we shall never have any Advantage of the former. It is evident then, that believing, and repenting are Conditi∣ons, and no Man of correct thoughts can boggle at the truth and certainty of it.

But perhaps it will be said, the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace was exploded by the first Reform∣••rs; for Calvin and others are quoted for this, that the Gospel promiseth not Eternal Life upon condition of O∣bedience. But I answer, and that with sincerity and truth, that the Reformers speak thus in opposition only to the Popish Interpret••tion of the word Condition; for those of the Church of Rom•• make Faith and Good Works, such a Condition as gives a right to Eternal Life, and inclu••••s in it Merit. In this sense they dis∣claim'd all C••nditi••ns; and so do we, because it is the

Grace of God, and the Satisfaction made by Christ, that give us right and title to Pardon, and Life, and Eternal Glory. But none of the Ref••rmed Churches ever doubted whether Faith and Obedience are Conditi∣ons of the Evangelical Covenant in the sense above pro∣pounded, viz. that they are such things, without the performance of which we shall never obtain the Bles∣sings promis'd to us. And this is ingenuously confess'd by1 1.379 one, who is thought by some to encline wholly to the contrary Opinion; speaking of the true acception of the word Condition in this present matter, he hath these express words, If it be int••nded that these things (viz. Faith and Ob••dience) tho promised in the Cove∣nant, and wrought in us by the Grace of God, ar•• ye•• Duties required of us in order to the participation and enjoyment of the full end of the Covenant, it is the Truth that is asserted, i. e. they are properly conditi∣ons. And thus in some respect the Covenant of Grace may be said to be a Covenant of Works, i. e. so far as it requires certain Conditions to be performed by us, tho not in the same manner that the Covenant of Works required them; for they are not to be look'd upon as a meritorious and impulsive Cause, as they were then, but only as an Instrument or Means in order to Eternal Happiness. But otherwise (as hath been said) there is a vast difference between the Covenant of Works and of Grace; for the tenour of the former was, that our First Parents, and in them all Mankind, should, without the least defect and transgression, perform the Law which God gave them; and that upon the sole account of this performance they should purchase Happiness: But if they were deficient in their Duty, they should perish with∣out any hope of Mercy. There was no provision of Forgiveness in case they should break God's Law; there

was no promise of being receiv'd into God's Favour again. But the terms of the latter were, that God would not be exact with us, and require an Obedience void of all sin; but that for the worth of Christ's sin∣less Obedience, for the value of his perfect Righteous∣ness, we should be rewarded with Life and Bliss. And this Covenant allows of hearty Repentance, after we have transgress'd the Divine Law, and assures us that we shall be reconciled unto God, and be restored to his Fa∣vour. For the sake of our Blessed Mediator, our Sins and Failings shall be forgiven us, if we sincerely re∣pent of them, and betake our selves to the practice of the contrary Duties. This is the way and method of Salvation under this Covenant: Instead of exact Righ∣teousness, i. e. wholly living without Sin, God accept∣eth of our doing according to the utmost of our capa∣city, and our acting with sincerity and uprightness: And the defect of this personal Righteousness and Obe∣dience, is supplied by the meritorious Righteousness and Obedience of Christ Jesus. Thus you see how these two Covenants differ, and that they answer to the dif∣ferent states of Man's Innocence, and of his Fall; and that the Second Covenant was made, because we cannot observe the strict Conditions of the First.

The Second Covenant, or Covenant of Grace, made with Adam first, was a long time after that repeated to ••••ra••am, Gen. 22. 18. and afterwards renewed, and in a solemn manner confirmed to the Isr••••li••••s at the giving of the Law on M••••nt Sinai. There was then this* 1.380 Covenant made between God and them; God promised Life, and they Obedience: therefore Moses who transacted this on the Mount, is said to be a M••∣di••t••r between God and them. It is said, Mos••s took,

the Book of the Covenant, and read it in the ears of the people, Exod. 24. 7. which refers to all the words of the Lord which Moses wrote, ver. 4. i. e. all those Laws, Precepts and Judgments which God gave to the People, and which they unanimously accepted of, and promis'd Obedience to. But the Decalogue was the Sum of this Covenant, as appears from Deut. 4. 13. God declared to you his Covenant, which he commanded you to per∣form, even ten Commandments.

Some hold that this Covenant made with the Israe∣lites, was the Covenant of Works, the same as to the main which was made with Adam before the Fall. I grant there was a kind of a going back (as I have ob∣served before) a seeming reviving of the Old Covenant of Works; and so the Covenant of Works was, as it were, after the Covenant of Grace; or rather the Co∣venant of Grace and Works seem'd to be at the same time. But this was not so in reality, but only in ap∣pearance: There was an Evangelical Promise to Adam and Abraham, viz. that they should be justified by the Messias; and there was a Promise also to the Iews, that they should live, i. e. be saved, if they performed the Law. But these two Promises were not inconsistent, neither did the latter of these abrogate the former, as the Apostle speaketh in Gal. 3. 17. The Covenant of Grace, which was confirmed before of God in Christ, the Law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, could not disannul, that it should make the Promise (or Covenant) of none effect. But, as the Apostle sub∣joins, The Law (which look'd something like the Co∣venant of Works) was added to it because of Trans∣gressions, until the Blessed Seed should come, ver. 19. The Law was to be serviceable to the Covenant of Grace, and to be a Schoolmaster to bring them to Christ. Hereby they were to be convinced of Sin, and of their inability to keep the Commandments. And the same

Law denouncing Wrath and a Curse, stir'd men up to fly to Divine Mercy, and to beg Forgiveness, and the Assistance of the Spirit, and so prepar'd them for the Gospel. God gave that People Precepts about Ex∣ternal Rites of Divine Worship, and also Judicial Laws for their Commonwealth: And besides these, he writ in Tables the Moral Law, and caused it to be promul∣ged. All which he closed with those solemn Sanctions, This do, and live: and cursed is every one that conti∣nueth not in all things that are written. Here was a ve∣ry great resemblance of the Covenant of Works, and the Law of Faith seemed to be laid aside: Or there might seem to be two Covenants on foot together. But the Design of Heaven was only this, that hereby the Iews might be brought to see their great Guilt and their deplorable State, that they might be sensible that they lay under Wrath and a Curse, and that thence they might be provoked to look for a Remedy; or, when it was of••e••ed to them, to accept of it. This was the Reason why they were under the Law, which had some affinity with the Covenant of Works. But the Covenant of Grace made with Adam soon after his Fall was not laid aside, but still prevailed, and no other but that. Even under the Law they were not justified by Works, but by Faith; they obtain'd not Salvation by their own perfect Obedience, but by virtue of the perfect Righteousness of the Messias who was to come in the fulness of time. It only seem'd good to the All∣wise God to obscure and disguise this Covenant in part, that they might be fitted for the insuing Dispensation of the Gospel, and that this Dispensation might appear more bright and glorious.

Now it was that the Covenant of Grace most signally display'd it self: By Christ's coming, and by the preach∣ing of the Gospel, it was fully and amply manifested, tho it had been in being ever since the Restauration of

Adam. Now at last the actual fulfilling of the Grand Promise of this Covenant, viz. the Incarnation of Christ, was accomplished. He came on purpose to per∣fect that Covenant which had been made and renew'd before between God and Man. Never till this time was there any compleat discovery of this blessed Agreement and Contract between God and us. In the Writings of the New Testament alone we find this set forth. Here is plainly discover'd the Mediator of this Covenant, Iesus Christ the Righteous, the Eternal and only begotten Son of God, who vouchsafed to assume our Humane Na∣ture, to clothe himself with Flesh, to converse in the World above thirty Years, to instruct Mankind by his Heavenly Doctrine, to confirm and establish us in it by his Divine Miracles, to direct us to the practice of it by his Holy Life and Spotless Example, and at length to die for us to satisfy for our Sins. As the publick and most solemn Covenants which we read of in the1 1.381 Old Testament, were made with killing and sacrificing, and effusion of Blood, (by Divine Appointment without doubt): So here the Blessed Messias, who was to com∣pleat the Covenant of Grace, shed on the Cross his most precious Blood, which therefore is call'd2 1.382 the Blood of the Covenant.

Again, in the Scriptures of the New Testament, are plainly and expresly set forth the Terms of the Co∣venant of Grace, i. e. what God hath promised to do, and what Obligations are upon us. Here Christ and his Apostles, and Evangelists, proclaim Remission of Sins, the peculiar Benefit and Privilege of the Cove∣nant of Grace; and Immortality and Eternal Life are brought to light by this Gospel; and the performance of

all the precious Promises which concern this Life and another, is ascertain••d to us here. And as it assureth us that God will fulfil his Promises, so it urgeth upon us the performing of our Ingagements. Christianity is an Obligatory Covenant, and this Obligation is mu∣tual. God will discharge his part, we must see that we perform the Conditions which are required on our side. The Gospel acquainteth us, that if our Peace and Re∣conciliation be not made, it is our own fault wholly; we will not leave our Sins, and thereby we ••rustrate the Agreement and Contract of the Gospel. This there∣fore calls upon us to undertake the Counter-part of the Covenant, i. e. to be holy in all manner of Conversa∣tion, to deny all Ungodliness and wordly Lusts, and to live Soberly, Righteously, and Godlily in this present World; to adorn the Gospel by a strict and circumspect walking, and to bring forth much Fruit to the Glory of our Heavenly Father. In the Evangelical Writings the Terms on our part, which are Faith, Repentance, and Ob••di••nc••, are more distinctly set down than ever; espe∣cially the Nature of Faith, and the peculiar Virtue of it are explain'd in that manner which they were never be∣fore: for that by Works and Faith we are saved, but that by Faith alone we are justified, is the Doctrine which St. Paul hath abundantly asserted, proved and con∣firmed, and it is establish'd by the other Apostles: which shews the great discrimination between the Co∣venant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace. The Gospel tells us how we are to find real Advantage by this Covenant and Law of Grace; it ascertains us that we can reap the Benefit of it only by C••nv••rsi••n and R••g••∣neration. It is therefore urged and inculcated, that we must be born again, that we must be N•••• Creatures, that there must be a Ren••vation of our Hearts and Lives.

Lastly, Christianity informs us what are the Seals of this Covenant of Grace; and accordingly let us know, that by Baptism we are entred into Covenant with God, and into the Church of Christ; and that at the Lord's Supper we repeat and renew that Convenant. Jesus, the Mediator of the New Covenant, instituted this Federal Ordinance: and this is that Holy Supper at which he gives us his Body to eat, and his Blood to drink, which he assures us is the Blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for the Remission of Sins, Mat. 26. 28. The sum then of what hath been said is, That God pitied the Mi∣••ery of Mankind, and was pleased to make a Second Covenant with him and his Posterity after they had broke the First. This Second Covenant, tho it was made with Adam presently after his Fall, yet it ar∣rived not to its height and perfection till the coming of Christ, and the preaching of the Gosp••l. Christia∣nity is the Covenant or Law of Grace in the best Edi∣tion.

The Answer then to that Problem, How the Old and the New Covenant differ? is easily resolved from the Premises: for if you understand (as some do, but how fitly you will judg from what I shall suggest by and by) by the Old Covenant the Covenant of Works, and by the New one the Covenant of Grace; I have plainly and distinctly set down the Particulars where∣in they differ. Or, if you mean by the Old Covenant the Mosaical and Legal Dispensation, and by the New Covenant the Dispensation of the Gospel, (which both are but One Covenant) I have given ample Satisfacti∣on to the Question, by shewing wherein these two differ; and by letting you see that the Covenant of Grace began with Mankind soon after the Fall, and afterward was continued in the Mosaick Dispensation, and at last was compleated by Christ's coming.

And here further to illustrate the Point, I will clear the Acception of these Terms, the Old and the New Covenant, which so frequently occur in Holy Writ; and I will make it evident to you, that in the whole Book of the Scrip••ures, the Old Covenant is never ap∣plied to the Covenant of Works, but is a part or degree of the Covenant of Grace. This then we are to know, that the Covenant of Grace is twofold, Obscure or Manifest. The first was from Adam's Restauration to our Saviour's coming; the second is ever since. The former is called the Old Covenant, the latter the New Covenant, and yet they are but one Covenant. This you will find to be the stile of Sacred Scripture, if you consult those two famous places, the one in the Old Testament, and the other in the New, which treat of the Old and New Covenant. The former is Iew. 31. 31. Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a New Covenant with the House of Israel, and with the House of Judah, not according to the Covenant I made with their Fathers (the old Mosaick Dispensa∣tion); but this shall be the Covenant that I will make, I will put my Law into their inward parts, and write it in their heart; and I will be their God, and they shall be my People.—They shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, saith the Lord; for I will forgive their I••iquity, and I will remember their sin no more: by which is meant the Evangelical Dis∣pensation, or the Covenant of the Gospel, which is ex∣presly called here the New Covenant; and the Covenant made with their Fathers is to be understood of the giving the Law to the Iews, and consequently of the Iewish Oeconomy. But this will be morefully made good from the other place, the 8th to the Hebrews, from the 6th Verse to the end; where is set forth the true Na∣ture of the Old and New Covenant, as I have repre∣sented it. Christ, our Eternal High Priest, saith the

Apostle, hath ••b••ained a more excellent Ministry, by how much also ••e is the Mediator of a better Cove∣••ant, which was established on better Promises, ver. 6. Here the Covenant of Grace under the Gospel is call'd a Better Covenant, because on some accounts it is bet∣ter th••n it was under the Law, and particularly by reason of more evident and certain Promises which Christ hath added. On this Consideration it is called a better Covenant, tho it be the very same as to sub∣stance. The Apostle proceeds, Vers. 7, 8. If the first Covenant had been faultless, (i. e. if the Legal Dis∣pensation had not been imperfect) then should no place ••ave been sought for the second (i. e. there would have been no need of introducing the Evangelical Ad∣ministration) but finding fault with that, he saith, Be∣hold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a New Covenant, &c. The former being found insuf∣ficient was taken away, and another brought into its room; tho (to speak properly) it was not another, but the same in other Circumstances. For the Co∣venant of Grace was under the Law; but because it varied as to some respects when Christ came, it is represented as a Double Covenant, and accordingly the Scripture calls the former the Old Covenant, and the latter the N••w on••. This Reason likewise may be given, why the Covenant of Grace which was in the time of the Law, is call'd the Old Covenant, and the same under the Gospel is call'd the N••w Cov••∣nant, viz. because they are so comparatively, i. e. the Legal Oeconomy in respect of the Christian one, is Old; and this in respect of that, is N••w. Accord∣ing to the different Administrations of the Covenant of Grace, this Covenant is said to be Old or N••w. In the Old Testament the Covenant of Grace was ad∣ministred by Sacrifices, Puri••yings, and many other Typical Ceremonies and Mystical Observances; and

this antient way of God's dealing with his People, is stiled the Old Cov••nant: but in the New Testament these things were done away, and so the Covenant of Grace appeared New, and on that account had its denomination. Thus tho the Old and New Cove∣nant differ in the manner, and way, and external Ad∣ministration, in so much that the latter is eminently call'd the Covenant of Grace, and the former in com∣parison of that is not the Covenant of Grace; yet really they are the sam•• in substanc••, and there is no opposition between them, for in both of them Free Grace, and Remission of Sins through Jesus Christ are held forth to all the Faithful, there••ore they are but One Covenant. This is the truest Notion of the Co∣venants, tho some of the Antient Writers, but more of the Moderns, have mistaken this Point, confound∣ing the Covenant of Works, and the Old Covenant, and making them to be the same, which hath been at∣tended with very gross Errors. For tho it is true, the Covenant of Works may be call'd the Old Cove∣nant because it was first, yet we now confine our selves to the stile of the Holy Scriptures, and are declaring what is call'd the Old Covenant in the Language of those In∣spired Writers; and there you will never find it is ap∣plied to the Covenant of Works, but always to the Covenant of Grace under the Old Dispensations: and the New Covenant always refers to that Covenant, as it was renewed and made better by the Evangelical In∣stitution. And because the Covenant of Grace under Moses was dark and imperfect, but when Christ came was clear and entire, therefore the Apostle re∣presents them as two distinct Covenant, a First and a Second, a worse and a better. Thus you have the true Reason why the former Dispensation is call'd the Old Covenant, and why the latter is call'd the N••w; and on this is grounded the vast Diff••r••nc•• between

the D••sp••nsations of the Law and the Gospel. But this doth not argue that there are any new Duties in∣troduced by this means, and that there is a real Ad∣dition to the former Precepts and Commands. No such thing can rationally be inferred from the Distincti∣on of the Old and New Covenant. So much con∣cerning the Particular Nature of this Evang••lical Dis∣p••nsation, and how it differs from the others; which was the first thing I undertook.

CHAP. XIII.

Tho we could assign no Reason why the Christian Oeconomy was so late, and why our Saviour arrived no sooner in the World, this is suffici∣ent to satisfie us, that it was God's Pleasure it should be so. But for the sake of the Inquisi∣tive, such Reasons and Considerations as these are offer'd: 1. It must be remembred that Christ appear'd in the World even in the ear∣ly times of the Patriarchs. 2. The Benefits of Christ's Redemption were imparted to the Faith∣ful before he actually appear'd in the flesh. 3. The World was not fit to receive him sooner. 4. He delay'd his Coming to make the World sensible of their Misery. 5. That the Advan∣tages of his Coming might be prized. 6. It was congruous that so great a Prince should not arrive without solemn Harbingers and Heralds of his Coming. 7. The necessities of Mankind call'd for him at that particular time and junc∣ture when he came. The Jewish Church grew worse and worse. An enumeration of the seve∣ral Sects and Factions which they were divided into, viz. Essenes, Pharisees, Sadduees, Herodians, Samaritans, Galilaeans. 8. God proceedeth in a gradual Order and Method. The most perfect things are reserved till the last.

II. I Am to acquaint you with the Reasons why the Christian Dispensation, as to the actual exerting of it, took not place in the World before, and (which is the

foundation of this) why Christ Iesus the Messias and Saviour blessed not Mankind with his Coming till that precise time wherein we are certified by the Evangelical Records and other Testimonies that he was born, and why he came neither sooner nor later. Indeed I might say here (as before) that we are to rest satisfied with God's managing this matter, altho we were not able to assign a particular Reason. The Wisdom and Equity of God's dealing•• are undeniable: He must be le••t to dispense his Benefits when he pleaseth: and most certainly that is the best time which he chooseth. It is the Glory of God (saith the1 1.383 Wife Man) to conceal a thing, to hide the Causes and Reasons of his Actions from Men, especially of the particular circumstance of Time, which is not of such Concern to us as the Things themselves. Therefore we ought not to be very inquisitive and scrupulous, but finally to resolve all into God's good Will and Pleasure. Thus when the Primitive Christians were asked in a cavil∣ling way by the Pagans, why Christ came so late, they ingenuously answer'd,2 1.384

We deny not that we are ig∣norant of the Reason of it: we cannot see and tell God's secret Will, and how he orders his Affairs. He alone knoweth What is to be done, and How, and at what Time.

And again, thus

In an Eternal and Infinite course of Ages, where there is no beginning nor end, nothing can be said to be soon or late.

And St. Augustin's Answer to those that ask'd why Christ came not before, was this,

3 1.385 Because (saith he) the Fulness of Time was not yet come, according to the

appointment of Him by whom all Times are: for it was best known to him when Christ ought to come.

And in another place he gives the like Reason, why Christ came just at that time, and no other,4 1.386 The Lord (saith he) who disposes all things in Measure, Number, and Weight, knoweth when he doth any thing. It may suffice then to answer, that so it pleased God whose Wisdom is infinite. He hath his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. his own times (for so it should be rendred) Tit. 1. 3. When these come, he sets such and such a Dispensation on foot. Tho this will not satisfie some, yet it ought to pass for good Divinity with those that are wise to Sobri••••y.

But yet, tho we must not sawcily pry into the Secrets of Heaven, we are permitted with modesty to enquire how far they may be discover'd to us. Therefore to give satisfaction even to the Curious, I will offer some Considerations wherein are contained the particular Rea∣sons of the Dat•• of the Christian O••con••my, why Christ came not into the World till it was about four thousand Years old, and why he came at that time rather than at another.

1. You are to consider that tho Christ was not Born of the Virgin Mary till that very time, yet he appeared long before to some of the Patriarchs and Saints under the Old Testament. The Angel that appeared to Hagar was the Messi••••, the Son of God: therefore M••s••s calls him the L••rd, or Ie••ovab, Gen. 16. 13. It was the Opinion of the Antient5 1.387 Fath••rs that this Second Person in the Glorious Trinity appear'd in human Shape to Abraham, as he sat in the Plains of Mamre, Gen.

18. 13, &c. where he is stiled Iehova••, and after∣wards the God of Bethel, chap. 31. 21. And he ap∣peared to Iacob in the Form of an Angel, and wrestled with him; he is call'd a6 1.388 Man in the entrance of the Sto∣ry, and7 1.389 God in the sequel of it; and the Prophet Hosea speaking of him, calls him God, Chap. 12. 3. This is that Angel of the Covenant who appeared Num. 7. ult∣Ireneus, Tertullian, St. Austin, and most of the Anti∣ents hold that it was Christ who appear'd as an Armed Man, and Captain of the Lord of Hosts, to encourage Io∣shua, when he was to take Iericho, Jos. 5. 13, 14. And many of the Fathers were of opinion that Christ was the Conducter of the Israelites out of Egypt into the Land of Canaan, who led them through the Wilderness of Arabia, and descended on Mount Sinai, and resided in the Tabernacle, and the Temple. And that of Daniel, Chap. 3. 25. the Form of the fourth Person (who was seen in the firy Furnace) was like the Son of God, is in∣terpreted by some of the Eternal Son of God, who used to visit the Patriarchs, and now visibly bore the three Children company in the Flames. And from several other places in the Old Testament it may be gather'd that Christ appear'd to the Holy Men in those days upon extraordinary occasions. So then he appeared sooner than is imagined: his Incarnation was not the first time of his Appearance in the World: he actually manifested and shew'd himself before his Birth. His early visiting of the Patriarchs and Prophets was a Forerunner of his more signal Appearing in the ••ulness of time, when he took on him our humane Nature, and convers'd with Mankind.

2. If you consider that all the Benefits which accrued

to Mankind by a Saviour, were imparted even before Christ was made Flesh, you will not think that his Ap∣pearance in the World was late. He (as you have heard) was the Lamb slain from the beginning of the World. The Covenant of Grace, that he who repenteth and be∣lieveth shall be saved, was made immediately after Man's Fall: the Merit of the Messi•••• his Undertakings was valid from that very time, and therefore the Pro∣mises of Mercy in Christ are contain'd, tho obscurely, in the Books of the Old Testament. The Gospel is antient: the Design of God in all Ages tended to the consumma∣ting of this: which may take off our marvelling at its being no sooner. It was in being long before as to the grand Efficacy and Virtue of it. Have then this right Notion of the true Date of Christianity, and you will not ask why Christ appeared not before.

3. Perswade your selves of this, that Christ would have actually appeared sooner, and that in our Flesh, if the World had been fit to receive him before. God acteth according to the Nature of things, according to the Capacities and Faculties of Mankind, according to the Condition and Frame of Men. Hence his dealings with them are different and various, his Admini∣strations and Methods are not alike: but they are always most sutable and agreeable to the present Circumstances. When1 1.390 Solon was asked whether he had le••t the Atheni∣ans the best Laws he could, he answer'd he had given them the best they were capable of. This is more eminent∣ly true of the Laws and Institutions, the Discoveries and Administrations which are from God the Great and Infalliable Lawgiver, they are the most exactly fitted to the Capacities and Dispositions, the Inclinations and Genius of the People who are to make use of them.

He prescribes Laws not according to what he is able to do, but according to our Ability to hear and receive them. Hence it is that tho True Religion be but One, yet it hath had Different Discoveries and Mani••estations, according to the Different States and Conditions of Men in the several Ages of the World. This argues not any Changeableness in God, but his great Wisdom, and Care of his Church: as a Prudent Master of a Family gives different Orders and Rules according to the diver∣sity of Persons and Times he hath to do with. Thus our Saviour was pleas'd to fulfil all2 1.391 Right••ousness, to comport with the present State and Oeconomy, to allow of any thing or Dispensation which God will have to be in the World, tho it may seem to some not to be so fit∣ting and decorous. This is sufficient that God acteth congruously to the nature of things, and that all along he administers every thing for the greatest Good of Man∣kind, altho in various Ways and Manners. This is one Reason why the Evang••lical Dispensation was not introduced till other Dispensations were past. The In∣disposition of the former and first Times made Christ de∣lay his Coming: he knew they were not prepared to re∣ceive his Doctrine and Miracles. This Reason is given by St.3 1.392 Augustin; and Eus••bius agrees with him, for treating of this very Question, why Christ came so late, he renders this Account of it,4 1.393

The generality of the World was become like Beasts, and so were not fit to receive Christ and his Doctrine. It was neces∣sary therefore that the Way should be prepared by Moses's Law, by the Doctrine and Example of Pro∣phets and good Men.

Before this the World was un∣capable of Christ and the Gospel.

4. Christ came not till four thousand Years were ex∣pired, that Mankind might see their Misery, and be ••ensi∣ble of it, and desire a Remedy; and in the mean time more strenuously exercise their Faith and Hope. Espe∣cially, with respect to the Iewish People, so many Ages had pass'd before the Messi•••• came, because hereby God would let them see their want of a Messias, that they might heartily breathe after, and long for a Red••••∣m••r and Saviour, that they might earnes••ly expect and pray for a Deliv••r••r to rescue them from that intolerable Yoke which they were under. This seems to be one Reason why God deferred the sending of his Son. Which is implied in those words of the Apostle, Rom. 5. 20. The Law entred (i. e. the Mosaick Dispensation interpo∣sed between Abraham and Christ's time, and thereby the Evangelical State was de••er'd a long time) that the Offence might abound, that the heinous Transgression of the Law might be the better discern'd to be Sin, and that Men might be throughly apprehensive of it. Then the Apostle adds, where Sin abounded, Grace did muc•• more abound, i. e. by this means the Grace of God in ••ending his Son, and his pardoning of Sinners through his Blood are the more fully display'd, and taken no∣tice of. Which leads me to another Account of this matter.

5. So far as we can apprehend the wise Designs and Purposes of God, we may render this Reason why this Benefit was so long delay'd, viz. that it might thereby be Comm••nd••d to us, and that we might set the great••r Value on it. God suffer'd the Darkness for so many hun∣dred years, that he might bring forth a more Glorious Light at last. From the opposition of these two the Di∣vine Wisdom is more manifest, and the Victory of the one over the other is more eminent. Hence Mankind is more eager in embracing the Light of the Gospel, and all the Advantages of it become more welcome and grateful.

6. It was not fit so Great a Prince and Saviour as the Messias should arrive without Harbingers and Forerun∣ners of his Coming. So that Pious Doctor of the Church speaks,5 1.394

Christ was to be foretold many Ages before he came, because it was no little and mean thing that was to come. The greater this Judg was, it was fitting the greater should be his Equipage, and a longer Train of Messengers and Heralds should go before him.

Observe therefore, after the Types and Shadows were vanished, after the Legal Services were expired, after all the Predictions of the Patriarchs and Apos••les were accomplished, after the so often repeated Promises concerning Christ were fulfilled, after the ap∣pearances of Angels, and Visions and Revelations, and extraordinary Declarations from Heaven had made way for the arrival of the Messias, after he was generally ex∣pected by the Iewish Nation, after all these Preparatives and Forerunners of his Coming were fully past, then he actually en••••ed on the stage of the World, and manifest∣ed himself in the Flesh. The Time appointed by the Father for the sending his only begotten Son, or (as the Apostle calls it)6 1.395 ••••e Fulness of Time happily brought along with it7 1.396 the Fulness of Christ, as the same Apos∣tle speaks. It was Reasonable, Decorous and Congru∣ous that so great a Person, and so great a Blessing should not come on a sudden, but that the World should be a long time prepared for so Glorious a Dispensation.

7. The necessities of Mankind seem'd to call for him at that very Time when he came. This is the Reason which8 1.397 Gregory Nazianzen gives why Christ came not

before, but then, because the World was more than ••ver corrupted, and the Degeneracy was greater; the Dis∣ease was at its heighth, and then the Remedy was most proper. So Theodoret compares Christ to those Physicians8 1.398

who reserve their strongest Medicines till the last, for having used Lenitives first, they choose to administer more powerful Medicines afterwards.

The corruption by Adam having miserably infected the World, God used fit means to stop the growth of it, and to curb Sin and Wickedness. Besides the Law of Na∣ture implanted in Mens minds, which was a constant check to immoral and vicious Actions, the Works of the Creation, which were continually before their eyes, w••re servic••able to instruct them in the Wisdom and Power of God; and to bring them to reverential Thoughts of him, and to induce them to serve and obey the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Preserver of all things. God swept away the Old World with an universal D••luge, to make the poor re∣mainder better, by reflecting on his Severity again•••• Sin∣ners. And when the World increas'd again, and ••ul∣titudes of People were spread on the face of the Earth, the Almighty God shew'd his Displeasure against Sin, in confounding the Language of the Babel-Builders, in consuming Sodom and Gomorr•••• with Flames from H••••∣ven, and in several other Instances he let Men understand that he was highly incens'd against Sinners; which should have been a Warning to them, and was so de∣signed by God, that they might tremble at his Judg∣ments, and abandon their evil ways. When God be∣held the obstinacy of Mankind, he was pleased to make ••uller Discoveries of himself than before: he chose out a

peculiar. People to impart his Will to, that they (what∣ever others did) might serve and worship him in a more solemn and pure manner, and that their exempla∣ry Lives might have influence on the rest of the World. He writ Laws with his own hand to deliver to them, he rais'd up Seers and Prophets among them who daily ad∣monish'd them of their Duty, and by frequent dispen∣sing of Mercies and Judgments he strove to make them sensible of it, and to keep them firm to it. When for their crying Sins they were sent into Captivity, God re∣stored them again, and placed them in their own Land; but they soon forgot his singular Kindness to them, and this extraordinary Favour of God was not powerful e∣nough with them to restrain them from the commission of the most abominable Sins, and to cause them to have regard to that Holy Religion which strictly forbad all such practices.

In every Age they grew worse and worse, and at last they arrived to the heighth of Impiety, and their Sins seemed to be consummated. In Iudaea, the Seat of this once beloved People of God, all Licentiousness, Lewdness and Villany prevail'd. The greatest Iews were Atheists and Epicures, and not ashamed to profess themselves such, as well as to live like Persons of that Character. And the* 1.399 Talmud might well say, When the Messias shall come, wise Men shall be very rare in Is∣rael, but Impostors, Inchanters and Magicians shall be many; this Sign having been exactly verified before the Coming of Christ, the design of whose being manifested was to destroy those works of the Devil. The Disorders and Wickednesses of the Iewish Clergy were very remark∣able before our Saviour's Coming. The Antient Order of Priests being extinguished by Herod, in their places

were put none but obscure, contemptible and unworthy Persons, who made Religion a cloak for their Covertous∣ness, and devoted themselves wholly to Gain and Interest. The Temple was turn'd into a place of Merchandize: the High Priests Places were bought, and a couple of that Order at a time were set up because they both had been Simoniacal; which shews likewise that the Iewish Ma∣gistracy as well as the Ministry was corrupted. There were great Corruptions among the Iewish Students and Doctors, who neglecting the weighty things of the Law, began to hunt after Niceties and Subtilties, and strove to cherish Disputes and Controversies. Hence were the No∣ted Schools of Hillel and Shammai, which were divided into two formal Parties, like Scotists and Thomists. Of whose different and disagreeing Decisions concerning the Law of Moses the Mishnah pretends to give an ac∣count.

The Iews were divided into three Religious Sects es∣pecially, the Essenes, the Pharisees, and the Sadduces. These were unknown before the Babylonian Captivity: but after that, and the building of the Second Temple, they sprang up both Names and Things: but the two latter Sects began especially to appear, and to be taken notice of about a hundred Years before Christ's Nativity; ei∣ther Sect endeavouring to bring their Kings (as long as the Regal Power was in the Native Jews) to their Opi∣nion, and accordingly great Factions arose by their Dis∣sensions. The Essenes among the Jews were a harmless sort of People, they retired from the World, le••t the publick, and betook themselves to a Monastick Life, daily Devotion, and Hours of Prayer: you may call them the Iewish M••nks. They came not to the Temple, neither brought Sacrifices thither, but pretended to use at home more Holy Ceremonies, as I••s••phus speaks. They had no Wives, counting the most peaceable way of Living to be alone. They had no Servants, thinking it to be a

reproach and injury to our Common Nature to be in a ser∣vile Condition. They were all Equal, and mutually administred to one another. This you will find in the Character which the foresaid3 1.400 Antiqu••••y (if he be not mistaken concerning the Persons and Things) gives of them. They are not any where mentioned in the Wri∣tings of the Gospel, because, 1. They affected a private and recluse Life. 2. They generally inhabited on the Coast of the Dead Sea, remote from Ierusalem. 3. They were no bu••••ling Zealots, they made no noise in Religi∣on. 4. They were not forward in persecuting of Christ. For these Reasons they are not spoken of by any of the Evangelists.

But the Pharisees, who were a busie Sect, and lived in the heart of Iudea, and were fierce Opposers of our Saviour's Doctrine, are frequently mention'd in the Evan∣gelical Writings. Our Blessed Lord often encountred them, and openly detected their 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Pride and Hypo∣crisie, as also their fond Superstition in enjoining Fastings, Washings, and other Ceremonious Practices of their own invention. These were the Men who wretchedly per∣verted the Law, holding that it enjoyned only external Obedience, and that by that outward Observance of the Law Men merited Remission of Sin, and were just be∣fore God, and Heirs of Eternal Life. Their constant Custom was to corrupt the true meaning of the Deca∣logue by their false Interpretations and Comments, as you may see in Christ's Sermon on the Mount, where he explains the Moral Law, and vindicates it from the corrupt Expositions which they had made of it, whereby they had almost extinguished the true Sense of the Com∣mandments. They had taken away the key of Knowledg by depraving the true Doctrine which was contain'd in

the Written Law and the Books of the Prophets, and by adhering to that which they call'd the Oral Law, the Constitutions, Traditions and Expositions of the Rabbies, and by making them the Rules of their Faith and Man∣ners. As to the more particular Opinions, Notions and Practices of these Men, we may satisfie our selves from the Account given of them by4 1.401 One who was of that Sect himself, as he tells us in his Life. The genuine Offspring of these Pharisees (as Buxt••rf observes) are now the5 1.402 Rabbanita, Traditionary Iews, or Talmudists, who stick not to the pure Text of Scripture, but are for New Explanations or Old Traditions.

The next Sect was the Sadducees, who ran counter to the Pharisees, and opposed all Traditions. The Iews at this day who answer to these (as before it was obser∣ved, there is a sort among them that are the true Race of the Pharisees) are the6 1.403 Karaeans, the Scripturists, who keep close to the written Letter, and reject the whole Oral Law, i. e. the Expositions and Glosses of the Rabbins. They hold only what is expresly deliver'd in the Law; and they are look'd on by the other Iews as Hereticks and Apostates. But as to the Antient Sad∣ducees (of whom I am now speaking) there were but few of this Sect, saith the7 1.404 forecited Author, but they were generally Persons of Wealth and Quality. This was it which was faulty in them, that they curtail'd the Holy Writings, and rejected all the Books of the Pro∣phets but Moses: the only Canonical Scripture with them was the Pentateuch, as Tertullian, Origen, Ierom and other Writers of good Account acquaint us. Tho I

find8 1.405 some Men of Note among the Moderns, who en∣deavour to consute this, and to prove that they received the whole Scripture, but they are not very successful in this attempt. Moreover, they most impiously denied the Resurrection of the Dead, and held that Mens Souls were mortal, yea they generally denied the Existence of Spirits, Mat. 22. 23. These Men won some People to them, because they were contrary to the strict and su∣perstitious Pharisee; they took off the burdensom Rites and Ceremonies which the others laid on. These two prevailing Sects, the superstirious Pharisee and the pro∣phane Sadducee, differing so much from one another both in Opinions and Manners, caused great Feuds and Contentions, and unspeakably hindred the Practice of Religion among that People.

To these famous Sects might be added the Herodi∣ans (call'd the Leaven of Herod, Mark 8. 15. by Christ) they were of the Religion of the Sadducees, and there∣fore on that account (as Doctor9 1.406 Hammond observes) may be said not to be a distinct Sect from them. See Mat. 16. 6. & 22. 16. Mark 8. 15. & 12. 13. But they were singular in this, that they were much devoted to Herod and his Government, and consequently that of the Romans: they were great upholders of Casar's Interest against the Pharisees and other Jews, who look'd upon Casar as an Usurper. Thus they were a different Sect or Faction. Some thought and held that Herod was the promised Messias: these were the Herodians accor∣ding to Tertullian, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, and other Fathers.

The Samaritans were another Sect among the Iews, and had been a long time: these had their Name from

Samaria the chief City of the Kingdom of Israel, which fell off from Rehoboam, and took Ieroboam for their King. When the Iews were carry'd captive into Assyria by Salmanasser, a Colony of Assyrians was placed in this City, who being molested by wild Beasts desired an Israelitish Priest to teach them the Religion of that Countrey where they were planted, whereupon a Priest came and instructed them, and they partly observed Moses's Law, and partly follow'd their own Idolatry and Superstition. From these came the Samaritans, who were reckon'd as rank Schismaticks by the generality of the Iews. Accordingly the Iews had no dealings with them, Joh. 4. 9. but maintain'd an irreconcileable quar∣rel against them. Several Reasons concurr'd to keep up this Feud and Antipathy, 1. The Samaritans were of the Race of the Assyrians who carri'd the Iews captive. 2. They oppos'd and obstructed the rebuilding of the Temple when the Iews undertook it, after the return from the Captivity, Ezr. 4. 4. 3. They possess'd a part of the Land which of Right belonged to the Jews. 4. They receiv'd only the Pentateuch, and rejected the other Books as Uncanonical; for when the Iewish Priest (mention'd before) was sent to them, the Cannon of the Bible consisted chiefly of Moses's Writings, for all the Historical Books were not extant at that time, and 'tis certain none of the Prophets were. 5. They sacrificed not in the Temple at Ierusalem, but on Mount Geri∣zim, where they had a king of a Temple peculiar to themselves, and was to them as that at Ierusalem was to the Iews. It was built at first for them by1 1.407 Sanballat, two hundred Years after it was destroy'd by I. Hirca∣nu••; Herod, when he rebuilt Samaria, made a Temple in it, but the Samaritans worship'd not in it, but on

Mount Gerizim. 6. They were averse to many of the Mosaick Rites and Ceremonies, and differ'd from them in several parts of Worship: Some say they were inclined to Idolatry. 7. They, as well as the Sadducees, held there was no Resurrection or Future Life, which was directly contrary to the firm Belief and Perswasion of the Iewish Church. For these Causes they were extremely hated by the Iews, and were not admitted to Conversa∣tion or Worship with them. Whence that common Say∣ing, He that eats Bread with the Samaritans is as if he eat Swines flesh. And another in use among the Jews was this, If a Samaritan pronounce a Blessing, it is not lawful to say Amen after it. They must neither eat nor pray with this People, but look upon them as Ac∣cursed.

There were the Galil••ans, Luke 13. 1. who were ra∣ther a State-Party or Faction than a Sect. Their Principle was, not to submit to the Roman Government, for they held it unlawful to obey a Magistrate that was a Pagan. Some think they were the Followers of Iudas the Gali∣laean, Acts 5. 37.2 1.408 Ioseph the Iew, after he had rec∣kon'd up other Divisions among the Iews, mentions this, and tells us that they were as to the main Phari∣sees, but this they had peculiar to themselves, that they most impetuously desired Liberty, believing that God alone is to be esteem'd and call'd a Lord and Prince: they underwent the most exquisite kinds of Punishments, rather than they would recede from this Opinion, and rather than they would give any mortal Man the Name of Lord. It may be observ'd that the Ringleader of this Party is call'd Simon by the foresaid Jewish Writer in his 3 1.409 Book of the Iewish War, as well as Iudas in his Book

of4 1.410 Antiquities, because perhaps he had both these Names.

Thus and much more was the Iewish Nation divided into Sects and Factions, thus it was disorder'd and cor∣rupted. Their Priests and People, their Church and State, their Doctrine, Discipline, and Manners were all depraved. Religion was decayed every where, Vice and Wickedness were predominant in all places among them. And this was but a Specimen of what was more Catholick and prevailing in the Empire at that time, to which the Iews were Tributary: for with the Empire came in all Vice and Debauchery: nothing was appro∣ved of but Sensuality and Intemperance, and all Exor∣bitancy; and the Virtue, Modesty and Sobriety of An∣tient Rome were laid aside. When the World was thus out of Order, and was like to be worse, CHRIST the Redeemer arrived: he came to bless us with greater Discoveries of God's Will, to inform and amend the erring and sinful World, to give Rules of exact Holi∣ness, and to commend Religion and Virtue by his own Example. And besides, the World was at that time engaged in Wars and Tumults, and frequent Battels, at∣tended with confused noise and Garments roll'd in Blood; nothing but Disorder, Outrage and Slaughter insested the Earth: and lo! at such a time as this the Prince of Peace visited the World, and brought with him Tranquillity and Repose, and created a great Calm and Serenity in the World. This shews how seasonable the Incarnation of Iesus was, and why he came at that time, and where∣fore Christianity was introduced at that very Season, and not before.

8. and Lastly, God hath always discover'd him∣self to be a God of Order and Method; he proceeds by

certain Steps and Degrees. And this may satisfie us why the Christian Dispensation took not place till other Dispensations had gone before. God erected not this huge Fabrick of the World in a moment, but proc••eded leisurely and by degrees. The World began with a Chaos and Con••usion, the Earth was at first a floating Bog, it w••s without form, and void, but in six days time it grew to what it is. So was it with Religion, its first day was in Adam, the second in Noah, the third in Abraham, the fourth in Moses, the fifth in the Gentile Oeconomy, and the sixth and last in the Messias: thus it gradually clear'd up, and had its Consummation in Christ. Observe as God in the Creation proceeded from things more imperfect to those that are perfecter; Trees and Plants and all Vegetatives were created before Beasts that have a sensitive Life; and at last he came to what was perfectest, Man, who hath a reasonable Soul, and is the most excellent of all God's Works in this low∣er World; Man, the worthiest Piece of the Creation, was made last of all: So there was the like Order and Method observed by God in framing and fashioning his Church; it was set up first with weak and imperfect things. The Laws and Constitutions given to the Sons of Men, were mean and low, and went no further than Natural Religion: it was like their feeding upon Herbs and Plants only. But afterwards Religion was inhanced by extraordinary Revelations and Discoveries, by posi∣tive Laws and Precepts: and by the Offering of Beasts, and other such Legal Observances, the Sensitive and Ani∣mal Life (as I may so say) the External and Bodily part of Religion was chiefly maintain'd. But at length Re∣ligion was inspired as it were with a Rational Soul, it be∣came Manly, Spiritual and Refined: by the Gospel it came to be a Reasonable Service indeed, an inward Prin∣ciple, a Law of Liberty and Love. Christianity is the last, but is the perfectest Dispensation in this Life.

What the Platonists hold concerning the several Pow∣ers and Faculties of Mens Souls, that in due time and place they orderly awaken into act, and when a lower Power is extinguish'd, a more extended and enlarg'd Capacity succeeds it, a more divine Faculty and Life spring up and are envigorated; what these Philosophers (I say) hold concerning human Souls, is true of Religion, and its several Dispensations. There is a gradual Subor∣dination of these ••everal Oeconomies, and upon the Ces∣sation and Extinction of one that is inferiour, a more Sublime and Perfect one arises in its Room: and it is God's Will and Pleasure that these divers Administrations shall take place in their Order, and that one shall not an∣ticipate the other. It seems good to the All-wise Crea∣tor to reveal the knowledg of himself by degrees, to dis∣cover his Will as it were by parcels. God dispenseth not all his Favours together, not all at once: but the mani••estations of his Will grow greater and greater suc∣cessively. He gradually instill'd into the World the No∣tion of a Messias: the Prophetical Promises concerning him were higher and higher: by little and little the Sun of Righteousness arose, and shined more and more unto a perfect Day. This is the Divine Method, he proceeds from imperfect to perfect things, from the Shadow to the Substance, from Types to Realities, from lesser to greater Discoveries. He thought good to train up his Church in this manner, and by meaner Communicati∣ons to make way for the most compleat delivering of his Will. Still all along one Administration exceeded ano∣ther, till at last Christianity arrived, which was Highest of all.

Those words of the Apostle to the Hebrews are very remarkable to this purpose: those under the Law, saith he, received not the Promise (i. e. the full extent of it in the Coming of Christ) God having provided some bet∣ter thing for us, that they without us should not be made

perfect, Heb. 11. 39, 40. He gives here the Reason why the Iews under the Legal Oeconomy had not the Promise compleated, why Christ came not in those days, viz. because the Church was to be perfected by Degrees. The condition of the Church before Christ was not to be compleat. They had their good things, but we were to have some better thing, that it might be seen that God proceeds in a gradual and successive Way; and that he will have things done in their due Season and Course: that we may take notice of this, that the Frame and Fabrick of Religion shall be reared by little and little to its Perfection, that God intends to reserve the best things till last; in short, that after Christ's Coming, Religion was to be at its full Age, and that this Glorious Dispen∣sation should crown all. Thus by the different Stages and Progressions, the divers Courses and Periods of the Church in successive Ages, God hath thought fit to shew himself a God of Order, and not of Confusion. And so I have finish'd the Reasons why the Christian Disp••nsa∣tion was deferred so long, and why the Blessed Author and Founder of it came no sooner.

The End of the First Volume.

Notes

• * 1.1

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.2

  Mr. Blunt, Oracles of Reason, p. 218.
• † 1.3

  Is. Voss. de aetat. mund. cap. 12.
• 1 1.4

  Whiston's New Theory, p. 20, 21, 24.
• 2 1.5

  De Opi••icio Mundi.
• 3 1.6

  Plato in Timaeo.
• 1 1.7

  Scias non esse hominem tumultuarium & incogitatum o∣pus. ••e Bene••ic. l. 6.
• 1 1.8

  Inter maxima rerum suarum Natura nihil habet qu•• magis glorietur. Sen. de Benef.
• 2 1.9

  Magnum Miraculum est homo, animal adorandum atque ho∣norandum. Apuleius.
• 3 1.10

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Chrysost. Hom. 2. Tom. 5.
• 4 1.11

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 1 1.12

  De mundi opificio: & de vit•• Mosis.
• 2 1.13

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. De special. leg.
• 3 1.14

  Contra gentes, l. 1.
• 4 1.15

  Strom. l. 6.
• 1 1.16

  Maledictus qui Deitatem ad hominis lineamenta refert. Au∣gustin. in Genes.
• 1 1.17

  Tertul. de resurrect. carnis, c. 6.
• 1 1.18

  Lib. de statu primi hominis.
• 2 1.19

  Lib. de ver. Deit. fil. c. 7.
• 1 1.20

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In Cra∣••ylo, vel 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 1 1.21

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Philo de opif. mundi.
• 2 1.22

  Adv. haeres. l. 5. c. 6.
• 3 1.23

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Philo.
• 1 1.24

  De Sacr. Animalib.
• 2 1.25

  Comment. in Hist. AEthiop.
• 3 1.26

  Et pro purpureo poenas dat Scylla capillo. Virg. Georg. 1.
• 4 1.27

  Horat. lib. 4. Ode. 1.
• 1 1.28

  Antiq. l. 1. c. 1.
• 2 1.29

  Rutland; qu. Redland, for rut or rud in Saxon is red.
• 1 1.30

  In Deuter. 4.
• 2 1.31

  Beresh. Rab. Sect. 17.
• 3 1.32

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. De Opif. mundi.
• 4 1.33

  Dixit R. Jochanan, Adamus & Eva quasi filii viginti anno∣rum creati sunt. Beresh. Rab. Sect. 14.
• 5 1.34

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. De partib. animal. l. 4. c. 10.
• 6 1.35

  Gen. 2. 19.
• 7 1.36

  De Occult. Philos. l. 3. c. 40.
• 8 1.37

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrysost. Hom. 14. in Gen.
• 9 1.38

  Homil. 10. in Gen.
• 1 1.39

  Praelect. cap. 3.
• 2 1.40

  De Ver. Rel. l. 2. c. 6.
• 3 1.41

  C••t. Racov. cap. 1. de Vi•• salu••is. Episcop. Instir. lib. 4.
• 4 1.42

  Cont. Celf. l. 4.
• 5 1.43

  In cap. 28. Ezek.
• 6 1.44

  Strom. 7.
• 7 1.45

  Cont. Anthropomorph.
• 8 1.46

  Epiphan. Haeres. 70.
• 9 1.47

  Gneden, deliciae, voluptates: unde forsan Gr. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 1 1.48

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, à Pardes pomarium.
• 2 1.49

  Nehem. 2. 8. vivarium.
• 3 1.50

  Num. 24. 6. Isai 1. 30. Jer. 29. ••. Ezek. 28. 13.
• 4 1.51

  Eccl. 5. 5.
• 5 1.52

  De Tradition. Hebraic.
• 6 1.53

  Epiphan. Haeres. 66.
• * 1.54

  Augustin. I••b. de Haere••.
• 7 1.55

  Archaeolog. l. 2. c. 2.
• * 1.56

  Ad Oros.
• 1 1.57

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Basil.
• 2 1.58

  Hieronym. Vitalis Lexic. Mathemat. in verbo [Paradisus.]
• 3 1.59

  Moses Bar-Cepha, lib. de Paradiso.
• 4 1.60

  Ha••res. l. 2. c. 66. Epiphanius
• 5 1.61

  Cirrellus.
• 6 1.62

  Sir W. R••leigh.
• 1 1.63

  Antiq. I. 1. c. 2.
• 1 1.64

  Buxtorf. Lexic.
• 1 1.65

  Whiston, Theory of the Earth▪
• 1 1.66

  Monsieur Hu••t. Mr. Carver.
• 1 1.67

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Aristot. Rhet. •• 1. c. 7.
• 1 1.68

  Synag. Jud. p. 408.
• 1 1.69

  Dr. Lightfoot on Job, Ch. 1.
• 1 1.70

  Epiphan. Haeres. 51. Theodoret. Quaest. 21. in Gen.
• 1 1.71

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Quest. 28. in Gen.
• 2 1.72

  Quaest. 58. ad Antioch.
• 3 1.73

  Procopius, Isidor. Pelus.
• 1 1.74

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 2 1.75

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Theodoret. de Provid. Orat. 10.
• 1 1.76

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Chrysost. Hom. 16. in Gen.
• 2 1.77

  Advers. Jud. cap. 2.
• 1 1.78

  Psal. 49. 20.
• 1 1.79

  Chrysost. Hom. 65. in Matth.
• 1 1.80

  Parva, inqui••, res est; atqui magna culpa.
• 2 1.81

  Gen. 19. 28.
• 1 1.82

  John 8. 34. 2 Pet. 2. 4. Jud•• 5, 6.
• 2 1.83

  Cont. Julian. l. 3.
• 3 1.84

  Eugubinus.
• 1 1.85

  Delrio.
• * 1.86

  Bonaventure.
• 1 1.87

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Anti∣quitat. l. 1. c. 2.
• 2 1.88

  Basil. Homil. de Paradiso.
• 1 1.89

  Damascen. de Orthod. fid. l. 2. c. 10.
• 1 1.90

  Archaeol. Philos. cap. 7.
• 1 1.91

  Psal. 49. 12. Non pernoctabit. Pagnin.
• 2 1.92

  Colloq. Mensal.
• 1 1.93

  Gen. 2. 8, 15.
• 2 1.94

  Gen. 2. 9, 16.
• 3 1.95

  Gen. 2. 17.
• 4 1.96

  Gen. 2. 19, 20.
• 5 1.97

  Gen. 2. 21.
• 6 1.98

  Gen. 2. 22, 23.
• 1 1.99

  Hajah, fui••••
• 1 1.100

  Irenaeus adv. haeres. l. 3. c. 34. Tertullian. lib. de Prae∣script. cap. 52. Epiphan. cont. haeres. 46. Augustin•• de Nat. & Grat. cap. 21. Greg. Naz. Orat. 18. & 31.
• 1 1.101

  Ovid. Metamorph. l. 1.
• 2 1.102

  Dr. Jackson, Vol. 3. Book 10. ch. 25.
• 3 1.103

  Dr. Woodward Nat. Hist. p. 85.
• 1 1.104

  Ibid. p. 84 & 89.
• 1 1.105

  De An••malib. lib. 7. c. 9.
• 1 1.106

  Smal••. de Div. Christi, cap. 7. Volkel. l. 3. c. 11.
• 2 1.107

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The∣od. in Gen. Qu. 38.
• 1 1.108

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 1 1.109

  2 Tim. 2. 26.
• 1 1.110

  Psal. 22. 12.
• 2 1.111

  Psal. 74. 13.
• 3 1.112

  Psal. 57. 4.
• 4 1.113

  Psal. 22. 16.
• 5 1.114

  Mat. 7. 15.
• 6 1.115

  Luke 13. 32.
• 7 1.116

  Mat. 3. 7.
• 8 1.117

  1 Cor. 15. 32.
• 9 1.118

  Acts 20. 29.
• 10 1.119

  Phil. 3. 2.
• 11 1.120

  2 Tim. 4. 17.
• 2 1.121

  Tit. 1. 12.
• 1 1.122

  Rev. 2. 7.
• 1 1.123

  Ish eth Jehovah, Gen. 4. 1.
• 2 1.124

  Helvic. Desider. matri•• Evae. Cocceiu•• in lo••um.
• 1 1.125

  De Abstinenti••.
• 2 1.126

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. De. Sta••.
• 3 1.127

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. De Abstinent.
• 4 1.128

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 5 1.129

  De Miss•• lib. 1. c. 20.
• 6 1.130

  De Abstinenti••
• 1 1.131

  De Legib. 1. 6.
• 2 1.132

  Quis enim Philosophorum sacrificare compellit? Apol. cap. 4••.
• 3 1.133

  Non in victimis, licet opimae sine, auró{que} praefulgeant Deo∣rum est honos, ••ed pi•• & rect•• voluntate venerantium. Sen. de Benef. I. 1. c. 6.
• 4 1.134

  Non bove mactato coelestia numina gaudent.
• 5 1.135

  Lib. Metamorph. 15.
• 1 1.136

  De Diis Syr. Prolegom. 3.
• 2 1.137

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 1 1.138

  Bp. Patrick Comment. on Gen. 4.
• 1 1.139

  De Jur. Nat. & Gent.
• 2 1.140

  Gemara Babylon.
• 1 1.141

  Volkel. l. 2. c. 28.
• 2 1.142

  Instit. l. 1. c. 8.
• 1 1.143

  Homil. in Gen. 27.
• 2 1.144

  In Gen. Quaest. 55.
• 1 1.145

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 Idololat. l. 3. c. 65.
• 1 1.146

  —Et ante

  Impia quàm caesis gens est epulata juven••is. Georg. I. 2.
• 2 1.147

  Metamorph. I. 15.
• 1 1.148

  De Abstinenti••.
• 2 1.149

  De Jur. Nat. & Gent. lib. 7. c. 1.
• 1 1.150

  Mercer. in Gen. 9. 4.
• 2 1.151

  Plutarch.
• 3 1.152

  Quintilian.
• 1 1.153

  Ostorod. Instit. c. 28. Smalc. cont. Frantz. disp. 6.
• 1 1.154

  More Nevoch. par. 2. c. 47.
• 2 1.155

  In Cap. 5. Genes.
• 3 1.156

  Gen. 6. 9. & 12. 4.
• 4 1.157

  Antiq. l. 1. c. 4.
• 1 1.158

  The Trinitar. Scheme of Relig.
• 2 1.159

  Nat. Hist. l. 7. c. 48.
• 3 1.160

  De Idoloat. l. 1. c. 28.
• 4 1.161

  Alex. ab Alexand•• l. 3. c. 24.
• 1 1.162

  De Emendat. temp. l. 2. c. 2 & 3.
• 2 1.163

  De Doctr. ••emp. l. 3 & 4.
• 1 1.164

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Qu. 49. in Gen.
• 1 1.165

  More Nevoch.
• 2 1.166

  Antiqu. l. 1. c. 4, & 8.
• 1 1.167

  Amos 3. 3.
• 1 1.168

  Joseph. Antiq. I. 1. c. 7.
• 2 1.169

  Eusebius, Jerom, Austin, and several of the Rabbins. A∣mong the Moderns, Calvin, Mercer, Cornel. à Lapide, Gene∣brard, Pererius, Broughton, Buxtorf, Bochart, Lightfoot.
• 3 1.170

  Origen, Chrysostom, Arias Montanus, Erpenius, Selden.
• 4 1.171

  Antiq. l. 11. c. 5.
• 5 1.172

  Qu. & Resp. 102. ad Orthodox.
• 1 1.173

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Lib. de Circumcis.
• * 1.174

  Gen. 12. 7, 8. & 13. 4, 18.
• 1 1.175

  Antiq. I. 1. C. 11.
• 1 1.176

  Bishop Patrick Comment. on Gen. 16. 2.
• 2 1.177

  Mr. Selden de jur. Nat. & Gent. I. 7.
• 3 1.178

  De Cive c. 16
• 1 1.179

  Ver. 17.
• 1 1.180

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Philo d•• D••••alo••o.
• 2 1.181

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Philo de Abrahamo.
• 3 1.182

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid.
• 3 1.183

  Mr. 〈…〉〈…〉
• 1 1.184

  Zebachim, tractatus in h•••• Mish••••h de Sacrifici••s.
• 2 1.185

  〈…〉〈…〉
• 1 1.186

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, macto.
• 1 1.187

  Exod. 29. 39.
• 2 1.188

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 3 1.189

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 3 1.190

  Lev. 10. 1.
• 1 1.191

  De Servat. par. 2. cap. 9.
• 2 1.192

  De. V. Rel. l. 2. cap. 12.
• 3 1.193

  Cont. Frantz. Disp. 4.
• 4 1.194

  Dr. Tillotson's Sermon on 2 Pet. 1. 4.
• 5 1.195

  Dr. Scot, The Christain Life, Part 2. Vol. 2. Chap. 7.
• 1 1.196

  De Christo Servatore, cap. 9.
• 1 1.197

  Ephes. 5. 2.
• 2 1.198

  De Victimis.
• 1 1.199

  De Vit•• Mosis. 〈◊〉〈◊〉, & alibi.
• 1 1.200

  De Sacerdot▪ honorib.
• 1 1.201

  Ab Aphad, operuit.
• 1 1.202

  Josuah ben Levi. Nettles against Selden.
• 1 1.203

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ar•• in colle posit••. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a bamal••. Altare, qu. exaltatum.
• 2 1.204

  Luci••n de Deâ Syr.
• 1 1.205

  Ver. 25, & 26.
• 1 1.206

  Bonsrerius, Gaffarel, &c.
• 2 1.207

  Villalpandus, Mede, Grotius, Bochart, &c.
• 3 1.208

  Joseph. Antiq. l. 3. c. 6.
• 4 1.209

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 l. 8. c. 2.
• 5 1.210

  Joseph▪ Antiq. l. 3. c. 9.
• 1 1.211

  Antiq. l. 3. c. 5 & 8.
• 2 1.212

  Aberbanel in Leg. R. Bechai in Leg.
• 3 1.213

  Deut. 12. 5.
• 1 1.214

  Of the Stile of Scripture, pag. 365, 366, 367.
• 1 1.215

  Mark 11. 17.
• 2 1.216

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 3 1.217

  Antiqu. I. 1. c. 14.
• 4 1.218

  Joseph. Antiqu. l. 8. c. 2.
• 1 1.219

  Antiq. l. 3. c. 10.
• 1 1.220

  Homil. 18. Tom. 5.
• 1 1.221

  AEneid. l. 8.
• 2 1.222

  Dr. Spe••cer. de Legi••. Heb. l. 2. c. 4.
• 3 1.223

  Phil. 4. 13.
• 4 1.224

  Psal. 89. 19.
• 5 1.225

  Heb. 7. ••5.
• * 1.226

  Hierozoic. pars 1. l. 2. cap. 50.
• 1 1.227

  Chrysost. in Psal. 119.
• 2 1.228

  Bochart, ibid.
• 3 1.229

  Hierozoic. p. 1.
• 4 1.230

  Just. Mart. Dialog. cum Tryph.
• 1 1.231

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 1 1.232

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 2 1.233

  Levit. 23. 24.
• 3 1.234

  Exod. 30. 1••. Levit. 16. 23, &c. & 23. 27.
• 1 1.235

  Origen, Cyril of Alexandr. Clemens Alexandr. Basil, Ambrose, and others.
• 2 1.236

  Clem. Alex. Paedag. l. 3. c. 11. Origen. Hom. 7. in Levit. Cyril. l. 9. cont. Julian.
• 3 1.237

  Hierozoic. P. 2. l. 2. c. 33.
• 1 1.238

  Dr. Spencer de Leg. Hebr•• I. 1. c. 5. ••ect 1.
• 1 1.239

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theodoret. Qu. 55. in ••en.
• 1 1.240

  Acts 18. 18.
• 1 1.241

  Gregor. Tolos. De Repub. l. 3. c. 5.
• 1 1.242

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• 1 1.243

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Hom. 7. in 1 ad Corint••••.
• 1 1.244

  In More Nevochim. P. 3.
• 2 1.245

  De Legib. Hebraic. lib. 3.
• 3 1.246

  Lev. 19. 27, 28.
• 3 1.247

  Lev. 19. 27, 28.
• 4 1.248

  Deut. 22. 9.
• 5 1.249

  Lev. 19. 26.
• 6 1.250

  Deut. 22. 5.
• 7 1.251

  De Diis Syr. Syntag. 2.
• 8 1.252

  More Nevoch. pars 3. cap. 38.
• 3 1.253

  Exod. 23. 19.
• 4 1.254

  Quaest. 1. in Lev.
• 5 1.255

  More Nevochim.
• 6 1.256

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Eclog.
• 7 1.257

  Quo sibi gentem firmaret novos ritus contrarios{que} caeteri•• mortalibus indidit. Profana illis omnia quae apud no•• sacra•• rursum concessa apud illos quae nobis incesta. Hist. l. 5.
• 8 1.258

  Sr. Tho. ••. Blunt's Essays.
• 9 1.259

  Dr. Spencer de Legib. Hebraic. lib. 3.
• 1 1.260

  De Leg. Hebr. Lib. 3.
• 2 1.261

  A Defence of the brief History of the Unitaria••••, p. 49.
• 3 1.262

  Slichting. Comment. in Epist. ad Rom. cap. 1. ver. 25.
• 4 1.263

  Dr. Tillotson (late A. Bp.) in his Sermons on the Divinity and Incarnation of Christ.
• 4 1.264

  Serm. 4. p. 188.
• 5 1.265

  Pag. 7, 22, 23.
• 1 1.266

  Horat. Serm. 1.
• 2 1.267

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euse••. Demonstr. Evang. l. 1. c. 6.
• 3 1.268

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Theodoret. Haere••. fab. l. ••. c. 11.
• 4 1.269

  Prima Secundae Quaest. 162. Artic. 3, 4, &c.
• 5 1.270

  Heb. 8. 5.
• 6 1.271

  Heb. 9. 23.
• 7 1.272

  Epist. ad Paulin.
• 8 1.273

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Dialog. cum Tryph.
• 9 1.274

  Origen, Philo, Clemens Alex. Rahanus, Beda, Rupertus, &c.
• 9 1.275

  Ho••••il. 7. in Levi••.
• 1 1.276

  Hist. of the World, B. 2. Ch. 5.
• 2 1.277

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 3 1.278

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 6 1.279

  Gen. 15. 12.
• 7 1.280

  Gen. 20. 3.
• 8 1.281

  Gen. 28. 12.
• 9 1.282

  Gen. 37. 5.
• * 1.283

  Gen. 41. 15.
• 3 1.284

  2 Kings 3. 15.
• 4 1.285

  Dan. 2. 1.
• 5 1.286

  Ruach Hakkadesh.
• 1 1.287

  Croesus Halyn penetrans, &c. Aio te AEacida, &c. Ibis, r••∣dibis, &c.
• 2 1.288

  More Nevoch. p. 2. c. 45.
• 3 1.289

  Panim el Panim.
• 4 1.290

  Peh el Peh.
• 5 1.291

  More Nevoch. p. 2. cap. 45.
• 6 1.292

  Antiq. l. 3. c. q.
• 7 1.293

  Dr. Spencer de Leg. Hebr.
• 8 1.294

  Corn. •• Lapide.
• 9 1.295

  Dr. Parker (Bp. of Oxford) against the Test.
• 9 1.296

  Lib. 1. Quaest. super Gen. quaest. 72.
• 1 1.297

  Hom. 1. in Gen.
• 2 1.298

  Haeres. 55. & 67.
• 3 1.299

  Haeres. 55.
• 4 1.300

  Cunaeus de Rep. Hebr. l. 3. c. 3.
• 5 1.301

  Ad Evagrium, & de Quaestion. Hebraic.
• 6 1.302

  In Gen. 14.
• * 1.303

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 1. 2. c. 1.
• 7 1.304

  St. Ierom, Bochart, Bp. Patrick in his Commentary on Gen. 14. 18.
• 8 1.305

  Joseph. de bello Jud. l. 7. ••. 18.
• 9 1.306

  Haeres. 67.
• * 1.307

  Quaest. 64. in Gen.
• * 1.308

  De jure Nat. & Gent. l. 2. c. 2.
• * 1.309

  Argument in Lib. Job.
• 3 1.310

  Divinitus provisum suisse non dubito ut ex hoc uno sciremus etiam per alias gentes esse potuisse qui secundùm Deum vixerunt, ei{que} placuerunt pertinentes ad Hierusalem spiritualem. De civ. Dei, lib. 16.
• 4 1.311

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Acts 8. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Acts 10. 2, 7.
• 5 1.312

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Acts 13. 43. Acts 17. 4.
• 6 1.313

  Acts 14. 16.
• 7 1.314

  Deut. 4. 7.
• 8 1.315

  Deut. 4. 8.
• 9 1.316

  Rom. 3. 1, 2.
• * 1.317

  Euseb. Eccles. Hist. l. 5. c. 18.
• 1 1.318

  Heb. 13. 8.
• 2 1.319

  Volkel. l. 3. c. 11. & Lib. 4. c. 3. Catech. Racov. cap. 11. de Proph. Christi ••unere. Crellius de D••o l. 1. c. 28.
• 3 1.320

  De Justificat.
• 4 1.321

  Veteres in Jesum venturum credidisse, & e•• ••ide justificatos, inter crassos errores jure recenseri debet. Sma••••. Disp. 4. cont. Frantz.
• 5 1.322

  Apologia ad Anton. Pium.
• 6 1.323

  Paraenesis ad Gentiles.
• 7 1.324

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lib. 1. cap. 4. toto.
• 8 1.325

  Adv. ha••res. l. 4. c. 13.
• 9 1.326

  Euseb. I. 1. Eccles. Hist. c. 1. Epiphanius, Augustin.
• 1 1.327

  •• Joh. 2. 7, 8.
• 2 1.328

  Euseb. Eccl. Hist. in Proaem. Theodo∣ret. Dialog. 2. c. 9. Chrysost. Hom. 1. in Ma••th. & in Psal. 113. & in Hom. 39. in 1 Cor. Epiphan. Haeres. 69.
• 2 1.329

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Clem. Alex. strom. l. 5.
• 3 1.330

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Athanas. Orat. 3.
• 4 1.331

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid.
• 5 1.332

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Basil. Homil. in Psal. 44.
• 6 1.333

  Chrysost. hom. 106. Phot. Cod. 46.
• 6 1.334

  Chrysost. hom. 106. Phot. Cod. 46.
• 7 1.335

  Dimidiatam Christi introduxit Oeconomiam. Hieron. Epist. ad Pammach. 65.
• 8 1.336

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Suidas.
• 1 1.337

  Acts 4. 12.
• 1 1.338

  Mat. 28. 19.
• 2 1.339

  Tempora variata sunt, non fides. Augustin.
• 3 1.340

  Ipsi per fidem futurae passionis ejus, sicut nos per fidem praeteritae, salvi fuerunt. Confess. l. 10. c. 43.
• 4 1.341

  H••mily of Faith, the second Part.
• 1 1.342

  Ephes. 2. 15.
• 1 1.343

  Dan. 12. 2.
• 2 1.344

  Isa. 33. 14.
• 3 1.345

  Cont. Palaeolog. par. 4. Resp. ad defens. Puccii.
• 4 1.346

  De Proph. Christi mun. cap. 5.
• 5 1.347

  Disput. 7.
• 6 1.348

  De Ver. Relig. lib. 3. c. 11.
• 7 1.349

  Cap. 15.
• 8 1.350

  Annotat. ad Cassand. Art. 2.
• 9 1.351

  Institut. l. 1. c. 10.
• 3 1.352

  Article the 7th.
• 4 1.353

  Annot. on Mat. 23. 23.
• 1 1.354

  Quantum differunt Lex & Evangelium? Quantum timor & amor.
• 1 1.355

  Ephes. 4. 8.
• 2 1.356

  Colloqu. Mensal.
• 1 1.357

  Augustin. de Civ. Dei, 1. 6. c. 10.
• 1 1.358

  Epist. ad Magnes.
• 2 1.359

  Niceph. Eccl. Hist. l. 7. c. 46.
• 3 1.360

  Sozomen. Eccl. Hist. l. 1. c. 8.
• 4 1.361

  Bp. Taylor Ductor Dubit.
• 5 1.362

  Institut. lib. 3. Sect. 2. cap. 1.
• 6 1.363

  Smalcius de Divinitat. c. 5. & Disp. 7. cont. Franc. C••te••. Rac. qu. 19.
• 7 1.364

  Isidor. Pelus. l. 3. Epist. 410.
• 1 1.365

  Mat. 26. 17. Mark 14. 12. Luke 22. 7.
• 2 1.366

  Psal. 119. 96.
• 3 1.367

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 implere, perficere, absolvere.
• 4 1.368

  John 15. 11. Joh. 17. 13.
• 5 1.369

  Mat. 2. 17, 23. Luke 1. 20. Joh. 3. 29. Rom. 8. 4. 1 Joh. 1. 4. Phil. 2. 2.
• 5 1.370

  Tertullian, Eusebius, Chrysostom who reads it [It was said to them, of old] Mat. 5. 21, 27, 33.
• 6 1.371

  Volkel. l. 4. C. 2. Smalc. de Divinit. Christi cap. 5. Catech. Racov. de proph. Christi mun. cap. 1.
• 7 1.372

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 8 1.373

  Aspectus oculi initiusmest transgressionis.
• 9 1.374

  De Idololatr. c. 2.
• 1 1.375

  Prov. 20. 22. Prov. 24. 26, 29. Ezek. 25. 22.
• 1 1.376

  Maimonides, quoted by Mr. Selden de Jure Na••. & Gent. l. 6. c. 13.
• 2 1.377

  Exod. 23. 32. & 34. 12, 15. Deut. 7. 2.
• 3 1.378

  Maimonides, Junius, Grotius.
• 1 1.379

  Dr. Owen of Iustification.
• * 1.380

  ••xod. 34. ••7. ••king••. 9.
• 1 1.381

  Gen. 21. 27. Exod. 24. 6, 7, 8.
• 2 1.382

  Heb. 10. 29.
• 1 1.383

  Prov. 25. 2.
• 2 1.384

  Non imus in••icias nescire nos &c. Arnob. adv. Gent. l. 2.
• 3 1.385

  Quia nondum venerat plenitudo temporis, moderante illo per quem facta ••unt tempora: sciebat enim quando venire debe∣ret. Tract. 31. in Johan.
• 4 1.386

  Novit quidem Dominus quid quando faciat, qui in mensu∣r•• & numero & pondere cuncta disponit. In Psal. 118.
• 5 1.387

  Tertullian l. 3. contra Marcion. Justin. Dialog. cum Tryph. Hilar. l. 4. de Trin. Athanas. Serm. 3. cont. Arian. Augustin. l. 2 de Trin. & alii.
• 6 1.388

  Gen. 32. 24.
• 7 1.389

  Ver. 28.
• 1 1.390

  Plutarch.
• 2 1.391

  Omnem statum, Oecono••iam. Grot. in Mat. 3. 15.
• 3 1.392

  Epist. 49.
• 4 1.393

  Praefat. ad lib. 8. de Demonstrat. Evangel.
• 5 1.394

  Per multam seriem temporum & annorum praedicendus fu∣it: non enim aliquod parvum venturum fuit. Quant•• major Ju∣dex veniebat, tantò praeconum longior seriès praecedebat. Augus∣tin. Tract. 31. in Johan.
• 6 1.395

  Gal. 4. 4.
• 7 1.396

  Eph. 4. 13.
• 8 1.397

  Orat. de Nat. Christi.
• 8 1.398

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Serm. 6. con. Graec.
• * 1.399

  In Tract. Sanedrim.
• 3 1.400

  Antiq. l. 18. c. 2. De Bello Jud. l. 2. c. 7.
• 4 1.401

  Joseph. de Bello Jud. l. 2. c. 7.
• 5 1.402

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 6 1.403

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• 7 1.404

  Antiq. l. 18. c. 2.
• 8 1.405

  Scaliver, Cunaeus, Hottinger.
• 9 1.406

  Annotat. on Mat. 22. 16.
• 1 1.407

  Joseph. Antiq. l. 11. c. 8.
• 2 1.408

  Antiq. l. 18. c. 2.
• 3 1.409

  Lib. 2. cap. 7.
• 4 1.410

  Lib. 18. c. 2.