Hey on Article VII: Of the Old Testament

1. Under the preceding Article, the authority ot the Books of the Old Testament appeared; but it is natural to ask, do they oblige Cristians? It was to Jews that they were addressed.— To answer this question properly, requires such an extensive knowledge of circumstances, and so much judg- ment in allowing for different situations, that it has occasioned disputes in a variety of ways.

In order to lead to some conception of these dis- putes, we may ask ourselves the five following we

By whom has it been said, that the Old Tes- 180 is contrary to the New?

2. By

[…] int […] 2 […] —

2. By whom has it been said, that “ the Old Fathers did look only for transitory promises?”

3. Have any Christians ever affirmed, that © the Law given from God by Moses, as touching ce- remonies and rites,” does © bind Christian men?” or, that the ceremonial law of the Jews is obli- gatory upon Christians?

4. Have any ever affirmed, that the civil and political law of Moses 1s binding upon Christians?

. Have any considered Christians as free from the moral part of the Mosaic Law ?

11, That the Old Testament 1s contrary to the New, has been affirmed. —We have already seen instances in the Manicheans*, and the followers of Marcion®. We may add the Catharifts © of the twelfth Century, who imitated the Manicheans.— The nature of this will scarcely be conceived with- out a few instances, which I will therefore read to you from Augustin’s work against Adimantus, the Manichean “ writer“.

But let us come nearer the time of the Reforma- tion.. When we do that, we get amongst low and illiterate Sefts. Before we say any thing of them separately, let us offer a general remark.

Low and illiterate Sects interpret Scripture with- out regard to the circumfances of those, for whom it was most immediately intended; for it is learning, which lets us into those circumstancess . Now whenever any ancient writing is so interpreted, it

must

© See Lard. Vol. 2. p. 413.—and Vol. 9. 187. f John Fox, in his“ Acts and Monuments,” (or Martyro-

logy), speaks first of some errors of the Romani/ts : one topic is, “Difference between the Law and the Gospel.” — See p. 34. 5 See Book 1. Chap. x. and x1. | |

— ͤ AùůWGñ m

N

—

5 a […] r ˙ r oy A y . ew}

PP

”—_ Cm — ö

—

gy prop gr rr

——— OR

— [ _ ——— —

38 BOOK IV. ART, VIL. SECT. 11. must be interpreted too literally; without any of

those limitations or additions, which, in things

familiar to us, we make by means of our feelings and common sense. The Scripture, thus inter- preted, contradicts itself frequently, and so must the doctrines of literal interpreters: we may, on this account, always expect to find great confusion and inconsistency amongst them. And, as they have no precise ideas, and therefore no Creeds, Catechisms, Confessions of Faith, nor any eccle- siastical History, their doctrines will be unsteady; and sects will ramify and mix imperceptibly, keep- ing the same names, in such a manner as to elude all regular and systematical investigation®.,—With- out such a previous remark as this, the thinking man might be disappointed with the best accounts that can be given of Antinomians, Anabaptits, &c.

111. The Autinomians present us with an in- stance of what I am saying. It is certain, that Lu- ther writes very sharply against Antinomians; it is equally certain, that Luther is esteemed * an Anti- nomian himself. And yet those, whom Luther rebuked, were really very different from himself. — A solution of this difficulty might give us all the idea of Antinomians that we should want.

The etymology of Antinom!, or Antinomians, is plain enough: a word compounded of art and vowos will imply adversaries of Law; and what Law 1s particularly meant in any case, must be

determined by circumitanees.

I do not conceive, that any set of Christians ever called themselves Antinomians: it is a term of | opprobrium

b Fuller, wittily enough, compares low Sects to confluent {small-pox. Church History, B. . p. 113. they rise separately, Hut soon run together so as to be no longer discernible from each other. Some might add, they become only one mass of corruption. | |

i Sec Bp. Hallifax on Prophecy, Ser. 57. p. 212,

%

opprobrium or reproach; Quakers is also a name imposed, not assumed; but it is rather expressive of facts.— It may not be clear who first used the term Antinomians; but I should conjecture, that it might be Martin Luther, intending to disgrace the notions of Agricola, and make even kim ashamed of them. I conclude this from different expressions in Luther’s writings*, Antinomus does not seem so descriptive and confined as Quaker; rather more vague, like © Jawless;” but his bold asperity might naturally use it. John Agricola, against whom he applies it, thought he paid a proper compliment to the perfection of the Gospel’, by depreciating every thing that could any way stand in competi- tion with it. Accordingly, he set aside the Law, meaning thereby the whole religion of Moses ; to which the strong things said in the Epistle to the Galatians, 1 the Law, might not a little con- tribute. Of his followers Luther says, qui Legem ab ecclesià tollere ® volunt; and in another place he affirms, that they teach, Legem in ecclesia non predicandam®.”

This term or appellation, of Antinomians, got to be used, not only amongst the reformed, but also on both sides, in the controversy between Luther and the Papists. The Polish Cardinal

Hofius

• Avro, in the Greek Classics, seems only to mean a contrariety of Laws, as when one Law contradicts another, or is inconsistent with it: but Luther might borrow the word and twist 1ts meaning a little on one fide,

! Antinomians, and others like in this, were called Gofpe/lers in England, at the Reformation.

m Luther’s Works, Fol. 7 Vols. Wittibergæ, 1583. Vol. 1. p. 495. —like repudiandum in Art. of 1552. |

n Vol. 6. p. 222.—See also Vol. 1. p. 400, Antinami cujusdam positiones ;”” and Vol. 3. 8. a sensible Dissertation on reading the Law of Moses.

40 BOOK Iv. 111.

Hojins* lays the blame of Antinomianism on Lu- ther himself; and indeed, though Luther had made Agricola recant his errors, yet Agricola had certainly been his disciple. Luther, in answer to Hosius, says*, that some Popish Monks had such contemptible notions of all Jews, that they thought the ancient Patriarchs like the modern Jewish Usurers; and that one of these Monks had said, that, so long as he had any brains, he never could believe, that Christians received their religion from Fews. |

Paul Crellius * and John Maclaurin seem to have been in the same way of thinking with John Agri- cola. |

But, when Martin Luther himself is called an Antinomian, the Law, that is the Law of Moses, has properly no concern in the matter; so, at least, I conceive: he is called so because he depreciated the works of the Law,” in order to give greater authority to his favourite doctrine of justification by Faith. Now, though in the expression, © the works of the Law,” the word Law may sometimes signify the Law of Nature, and sometimes the Law of Moses, yet that makes no difference in the pre- {ent case; it is merely as works, that Luther depre- ciates the Works of the Law;—as opposed to Faith, And indeed that may be St. Paul’s sense

of

o See his Works, Vol. 1. p. 442. Lib. 1. de Hæresibus.

p Works, Vol. 7. Pref. to Letter contra Sabbatarios.

q4 Nicholls on this Article refers to Paul Crellius’s Book 7? Libertate Christiana, but I do not find it any where. A eech of his is in the Bodleian Catalogue, but not this work.

r I have, in some old papers, a remark, that this author, John Maclaurin, in a Sermon on Gal. vi. 14. (Vol. 12. p. 9, has a notion like that of Marcion, that the Gospel could not come from that Being, who made this world. But I do not re- member where I saw the Book: and now I cannot find it (1790). However, I have no doubt but there is such a book. ©

5 Rom. iii. 20. and ix. 32, Gal. ii. 16.

BOOK IV. ART. VII, SECT, 111. 41

of “ Law,” when he * says, that no flesh is justi- fied by the works of the Law. If he spoke to Jews, he must mean their works, if to Gentiles, theirs: their obedience to their laws, respectively. — But, as the eleventh Article is upon justification, we need only observe here, that, when Luther re- bukes men as Antinomians, they are of that sort which belongs to this Article; when he himself 1s ranked amongst Antinomians, they are of the sort which 1s to be considered under the enn Ar- tide.

The next of the illiterate feats, which we shall have occasion to take notice of, is that of the Anabaptists. That the compilers of this Article had them in view, appears from the 4th Chap. de Hæresibus in the Reformatio Legum. Those here meant sprung up, probably, in Germany, in the heat of Reformation; — they were ignorant and furious; indulged any fancy that happened to arise in their minds from a literal and barbarous inter- pretation of Scripture; and by that means were a great disgrace to the Reformers, and occasioned them very great trouble. We shall often have to mention their weak notions in treating of our Ar- tides. Whether Pacimontanus was the first of them, as Hosius* says, or Stork, Stubner, and Muncer ” should be considered as their founders, is a matter of no consequence. The source is too obscure and foul for us to take much pains in tracing it out. Sleidan has written an History of

them,

© Rom. iii. 20. Gal. ii. 16.

u These sorts of Antinomianism approach nearer to each other, when seen in one point of view; see afterwards, Sect. vii.

x Hosu Opera, Vol. 1. p. 431.

y Mosheim says, these were leaders of the fa&ious Anabap- tists: Cent. 16. 3. 2. 3. 4. but he conceives a sort of embryo Anabaptists before the Reformation,

. et Ee ado ay

42 BOOK Iv. 111.

them, which is translated into English by Bohun?; but we must not be surprized if we meet with some inconsistencies; nor must we think accounts false for that reason: those who declared against all war, engaged in a war particularly furious and bloody, which was called the rustic war“, or the war of the Peasants;—they might indeed be op- pressed, but who, even amongst those that allow the lawfulness of war, justifies it except on princi- ples of self-defence? Neither must we be surprized if we find some writers speaking of them as of 7wso forts®, others, as of twelve or tlurteen, or still more. The name of Anabaprists came from bap- tizing adults, or from baptizing avs, over again, those who were converts to their sect, and had only been baptized in infancy: yet, what would be more striking, was their notion of Christian Li- berty; of that Liberty, with which Christ had made them free: and their idea of that“ yoke of bon- dage*,” with which they ought not again to be

entangled. —They not only thought, that they

ought to throw off the yoke of Mosaic bondage, but of all civil government, and Law:—yet, as they could not act together without some sort of go- vernment, they got possession of the city of Mun-

fer, and called it the New Ferusalem.—Some of

them did, moreover, indulge fancies concerning the

z A good short account of the German Anabaptists—in Wall’s Inf. Bapt. p. 414, Quarto; or Part 2, Chap. 8, Sect. 4.

2 In 1525.

d Neal’s Hist. Pur. Index, Anabaptists. Bullinger contra Anabaptistas, L. 2. Cap. 12. (Bullinger died in 1575.) See a treatise against Socinianism by Dr. Chey- nell, p. 56; Dr. Cheynell was a Presbyterian Bigot, preferred by Parliament in 1647 : Lady Margaret’s Professor of Divinity at Oxford, and Head of St. John’s College there. Some men- tion of him may be found by the Index, in Neal’s History of

the Puritans.

4 Gal. v. 1.

BOOK IV. ART. VII. SECT, 111. 43

the Holy Trinity, and the Incarnation*. Those, who came over to England, were all cruelly used, though perhaps lawfully; and two were actually burnt in 1575. — Indeed Joan? of Kent also, who had suffered before, in 1549, might perhaps rightly be called an Anabaptist,— Their notions concerning magistrates, war, property, oaths, law-suits, will oc- cur hereafter® In some things, they revived Pela- 21an © notions,

The modern Baptistis wish to be considered as perfectly distin& from these Anabaptifts; no won- der,

It may not be improper here to mention that se&, who called themselves the Family of Love; and who were, by others, sometimes called Fami- lists. They were Mystics, (I call every one a Mystic, who professes to know how he is inwardly taught of God) ; their founder, Henry Nicolas, a Dutch- man, who taught in his own country about“ 1 5 50, and afterwards came over into England.—-That Mystics in general were considerable about the _ of the Reformation, appears from the 19th Article of Edward vi; and from the Reformatio Legum’. And in 1579 the Family of Love were important enough to produce a Proclamation” ; and a test tendered by privy counsellors.—They were persecuted in a very inquisitorial manner; but such was the custom of the times. This persecu-

tion e Art. 11. Sect. x11r.

f Hume, Ed. vi. 2 1 1. end. Fuller, in the Diurnal of Edw. v1. Book 7, p. 398.

s Under Articles 375 38, and 39. | 2 Ridley’s Life, p. 344: compare Wall’s Infant Baptism, P. 1

i See B. 111. Chap. xv. Sect. xi.

& Fuller, B. , p. 112. De 1 Cap. 3. * m See Sparrow’s Collection, p. 171. Fuller’s Hist. p. 113. 9+

— SEES EEE ID On rr .

2 ů ——— =

r

= >

—

2 FR wth x —_—

N 22 * 9 . . 2 1

ky 9 […] 3 ,

tion was the reason why the writings of Henry Ni- colas are published as the works of H. N. They thought H. N. a personage not enditeable. Some mention this Sect as the source of English Quakers and French 92wuteti/ts; some make them the same with the Philadelphians, whom others state to have risen from Fane Leadley;—but it seems to me, that there have been Mystics in all ages; and that, when eople assign a source of known sects, they only look back till they can see no farther, and then fancy they see to the source.— How such sects spawn, it seems impossible to discern minutely.— Most sects of Mystics seem to have had leaders of weak intellects; Fuller gives“ an humorous account of the weakness of Henry Nicolas; and Anthony Randall shews his own weakness in that declara- tion, for which he was deprived of his preferment’. The vicious perversions of the doctrine of Grace, which this sect ran into, must be mentioned here- after: We observe now only what relates to settin aside the Law of Moses;—they do not reason, like the Manicheans, on the contrariety of the Old to the New Testament, but they effect the same end: they repuaiate? the Old by fpiritualizing and alle- eorizing%. Moolston used to do the fame, but with more learning and ingenuity”. This is not to leave

what we call the Law; though we shall have to

make a remark * seemingly contradictory, with re- gard to the ceremonial part of the Law of Moses.

Rut

n B. g. p. 112. © Strype’s Whitgift, Append. p. 93, He would own no Sacraments of divine authority, because the werd Sacrament

is not in Scripture. | ? Non est repudiandum (vetus Test.) sed retinendum, &c,

Art. 6 of 1552, 2 See Luther’s Works, Vol, 3. beginning of Preface, r See B. 1. Chap. xv1. Sect. vii. s Sect. v. of this Article.

BOOK iv. III, 45

But whoever allegorized away the part, which we think is still of importance, and established that part, which we think ought to © vanish * away,” might be properly enough said to repudiate what we conceive to be the Old Law. And such per- sons seem to require some mention in this place. — The Dofrina®, &c. published in 1617, mentions the Mennonites as troublesome at the time of the Reformation; they are not so remote from these Familists, as to require a separate consideration. — The Libertini seem to have been of the wilder sort of Antinomians,

We may here, by the way, observe, that Bishop Burnet seems scarcely accurate in saying“, that this whole Article was formed against the Antinomians. It can certainly affe& no fort of Antinomians but those, who reject the Law of Moses; not those, who only have too high notions of the efficacy of Faith : and how can that part be against them, which blames the retaining a portion of the Mosaic Law; I mean the ceremonial part. — Then, it seems clear, trom the Reformatio Legum, that the Article was made against Anabaptists, in some measure ;—per- haps Bishop Burnet might say, that Anabaptists were Antinomians, and Fuller“ owns, that it is hard to “ banke, and bound their several absurdities;“ —yet I think Bishop Burnet mentions, in the body of his Exposition“, some enthusiasts as aimed at, whom he would not call Antinomians in any sense relating to the Jew Law.—But in truth it is a matter of consequence in zt/elf, to point out both the connexion and the difference between the Old and

New

t Heb. viii. 13.

P. 19- -fuel’s Apology. Also B. rv. Introd. Sect. vr.

• Burnet, Art. 7. opening. Nicholls commends Burnzt’s notion.

Fuller, B. q, p. 113. 2 P. 96, 97, Fol. P. 120, Octavo.

New Testament; and not only a matter of conse- - quence, but of nicety; and one, which a variety of notions has given occasion to explain, Martin Luther is very careful to * explain it.

This nicety might perhaps be the reason why some illiterate sets might reject the old Law to- tally :—that would be the natural consequence, if they thought rejecting it wholly was a less evil than retaining it wholly;—and were unable to adjust the degree and manner, in which part of it might va- nisn away, whilst the rest remained in force.— Such persons would find the Epistle to the Gala- tans very obscure; (if it did not seem to require the rejecting of the Law:) so indeed might the generality of us, if we had not had it explained by a great Fhilosopher®.

IV. By whom has it been said, that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises?“ — Promises there certainly are in the Old Testament: some relating to temporal benefits, to a land flowing with Milk and Honey, &c; some, which may be in a degree ambiguous; or which may denote worldly prosperity in a primary sense, and spiritual and eternal blessings in a secondary sense.— (See Gal. iii. 14, &c. to the end.— Luther, Vol. 3. fol. 8.)— And any thing in the divine /pensations may be deemed a promise, which excites a reasonable ex- pectation.ä— How have these promises been under- stood ?—by some, we hold, in a sense too confined and worldly, The framers of our Article might have in view the 7erws, many of whom, even though they expected a Mefiah, expected him not as the Lord of an eternal Life; —especially the Sadducees : but, in composing the Article, attention would be chiefly fixed on Christians. Calvin, in his Insti-

tures,

2 Vol. 3. Fol. beginning. Quomodo Libri Mosi legendi sunt, d Mr. Locke.

ty […] 7 ? b »

© 22 $4

BOOK Iv. ART. VII, SECT. 1V. 47

tutes, has three chapters on this subje&t*; and he expressly mentions the Anabaptists * as his adversa- ries, and Servede in particular; —and as making it necessary for him to write upon it.

If 1 understand their notion rightly, they tried to magnify the goodness of God by saying, that though he would freely give us an Heaven through Christ, yet that he still need not, he was not hound to do so by any promise. Promises he had made, to be sure, but they were fulfilled by the coming of Christ; he had promised us Christianity, and he had given us it; so there was an end of that mattet: what remained, would come from gratuitous good- ness, not from mere justice; it would be a free gift, not a payment of a debt. Thus, accordin to the notion of these men, the promises made by God to the Patriarchs were only transitory promises; they did not include eternity.

Calvin supported his opinion, that the promises were more than transitory, that they were erd/e/s in their effects, by John v. 24. or 1 John iii. 14. which made it look like the doctrine of afsrrance of future happiness; or as if it were thought, that the heavenly state was already begun ;—but he lays also, that the same persons held, that God blessed the Israelites only as animals*, One would think the error described was recent at the time of the Reformation, because Calvin speaks of it * as arising

from

< Calvin, Inst. Lib. 2. Cap. q, 10, 11.

© As Hogs; fatted them well; Cap. 10. Sect. 1.—In Sect.

23, there is mention of wealth, power, a number of children, as well as of the belly and the flesh,

Lib. Cap. . Sect. 3,

= TTY — K =

[…] 5

—

— . 2 42> — \ — 2 d 2 2 : I- - XTC rr fr A TTP

2 KU 5 TY. REC. AE co A

— . . ae Ee As —

2 * . TOS CC RFI

43 BOOK 1V. 1v. from what he himself had said; that Christ had

| finished all his work: — It is wrong, he says, to conclude from what I said, that we are not to

live in lope; that, because an offer is completed, the benefit of that offer is immediately enjoyed. It seems as if those, whom Calvin opposes, had dwelt generally upon the opinion, that the promises of the Old Testament were temporary, and that the purpose of such promises was, to make the

Jews expect temporal rewards; and it is not impro-

bable, that Calvin’s opponents set up the notion just now mentioned, by way of per/iting, when they were pressed with arguments proving, that Christianity had been promised. —Oa all accounts, it became proper for Calvin to shew, that a future state appears from the Old Testament. As Patres, he mentions Adam, Abel, Noe; and he says, that a future state might be colleAed from the death of Abel: Abraham was always panting after a future state. He mentions Iiaac and Jacob with a re- ference to Heb. xi. 9%. He says, Balaam forefaw a future state, as did David;— Job allo and the later Prophets. Luther allo enumerates ® promises made to Adam, Abraham, and Moses.

Acontius was in England about the time when our Articles were published, and dedicated a Book to Queen Elizabeth; he came from Trent, and was looked upon as a favourer of Socinianism, and as coming between Læbus Socinus and his nephew Faustus : he is represented * as leaving it doubtful whether Avraham believed in Christ. |

v. Have

See Clem, Rom. 1st Ep. SeR. 31. in Wake’s Transl. p. 24. h Vol. 3. beginning. i I do not see Acontius in Strype’s Parker, or Grindal ;—he i; in Ladvocat, His book seems uninteresting. —I suppose, as Cheynell says, he was afraid of speaking oat: which might ive a dryness and infipidity to his stile, * See Cheynell against Socinianism, p. 38.

;

7 7 SPAR 0 * 2 * dat Lag. n NR — 2 Dre

5 2 : Did “7% ’ R nns, PIC ERted > 6 BEt

Yo Pp ph… EM = ro […] 4 % — Ze £5 NJ OA SEA I, A | A, : | +

S- &, £ of > $ F |, N

Ko […] N Pal an of +4 Jo- => ki * * e A.

Wa IIS, A

BOOK LV. v. 49

v. Have any Christians ever held, that the ceremonial Law of Moles continues in force under the Christian dispensation?

The very early Jer Sets of Christians did this; but of them we have spoken before!.

m And it seems clear, that there were some who did the same at the time of the Reformation, from the latter part of the same Chapter of the Reforma- tio Legum, to which we have already referred“.

The Book of the Familifts called Evangelium Reg- ni, mentioned in Queen Elizabeth’s Proclamation, is said to hold the same * doctrine: and this fect may be meant in the Law de Herefibus.

Bishop Burnet * thinks, that only Jews are here to be disputed with: surely we have proved the contrary ;—we may perhaps add the Schoolmen?, who, according to Bishop Burnet’s on account, said the Levitical Law was perpetual. How fully persuaded the Jews of later ages were of the eter-

nity

1 Appendix to Book 1. Sect. xx1. xx11.

m There seem to have been doubts amongst Christians how far particular rules were Jewish, and how far Christian, moral, perpetual. Oaths have been rejected by some great Christian Fathers, as allowed to Jews, not to Christians. See Art. 37. Set v; and Barclay’s Apology. |

i De Hæresibus, Cap. 4.

o Ropers on this Article.

? On the Article, p. 125.

Here is an ambiguity : the Schoolmen might retain the Levitical Law; but retain it, not as ceremonial, but as moral. Maclaine on Mosheim speaks more than Burnet as if they re- tamed it though ceremonial. In the case of Henry vii. Lev. xx. 21, should not be reckoned more valid than Deut. xxv. 5. merely as Lewitical. Prince Arthur left no child; was only 16 years old. |

VOL. 111, D

3 T5 : — = - 49 S — SPP CTC OAPEMPFRIPSRY OY WY TIPS Y ——— — 1… .’ ] —

Dn —

© 5 *

[…] —

50 BOOK Iv. ART. VIt. SECT. vi.

[…]

Martin Luther writes to Sabbatarians,—And S1rype (peaks of “ a Jewish Sabbath-keeping” in 1595, in consequence of Dr. Bound’s Sermon ; but it appears from Fuller’s * History, that Jewish | is no more than a declamatory expression for very fri. However, there have been Sabbatarians (Christians mean), who have kept the Jewish Sabbath, and on the Saturday”. In Fuller, Book 11. p. 144, &c. there are three columns, expressing the two extremes, of Sabbatarians and Anti-Sabbatarians, and the mean: whence it appears, that in 1633 there were some perfect Sabbatarians. Heylin’s History of the Sabbath would give more informa- tion, if wanted; and shew what very different notions have been held about it. Some ancient Christians used to keep Saturday holy, in compli- ance with the prejudices of the Jewish Converts, though they kept Sunday as sacred * allo.

vi, Has it been affirmed, that the civil law of Moses 1s binding upon Christians ?

In answer, we might again refer to the early judaizing Christians, and, I think, to our Retor- tnatio ? Legum, but we had better go on to some-

thing

c B. 9. 227.

u See Chambers s Dictionary. Sabbatarians.

Y In the title of Cap. 4. de Hæresibus, we have, “ aut totum a (vetus testamentum): circumcision might be the instance, as what was the least likely to be retained,

; ; E. %4 4 F So

ba

N * 8 ata = PREY CY * 1 5 : Es fo EEE Be IE Wroaoae, . n . 5 ATT, fe +326

*; 1 C bn FO $21 U e n PISS WE x

SKIES - . on >. he yn * er W r n y *.- > A 8 * 2 1 SLE 3 T

BOOK iv. vi. 51

thing peculiar :—the reformed Ministers soon after the Reformation were intent upon reforming States upon Fewi/h ideas; and our civil“ wars shew many instances of such a turn, Dr. Balguy expresses this folly well, near the beginning of his sixth Discourse,

The Browni/?s might be-mentioned here, a spe- cies of Puritans under one Robert Brown *®; — not that I know their notions exactly, but I have imagined, that, looking on the Mosaic constitution as divine, and therefore perfect, they wished to adopt as much of it as possible, in Church and State, Strype has preserved © a Letter from this Robert Brown to the Lord Treasurer *, from which it appears, that he thought the Scriptures, as being divine and therefore perfect, the proper source of instruction in all arts and sciences *, — We have already mentioned the Anabaptists of Germany as

setting

= B. 1, Chap. x1. Sect. 11.

d He is sometimes said to be of Northampton, but he had only the living of Achurch in the county, after he had given up his own se&, in 1589. His Father was a gentleman (and once Sheriff) of Rutlandshire, his Mother a Boteler of Woodhall near Hatfield, in the county of Hertford. His return to the Church has a look of great inconsistency, as he had been par- ticularly strenuous in declaring the Church of England sinful, and, I think, fdolatrous. He was probably a weak man in in- telle&, at the same time that he was strong in passion; turbulent and ungovernable. At last he was committed to Northampton Jail, for striking a Constable, and died there aged 80, A. D. 1630. See Strype’s Whitgift.

c Life of Whitgift, Appendix to Book 3. No. 45:

4 Chancellor of the University of Cambridge from 1557 to

1 598: Lord Burleigh, Robert Cecil, was a relation of Brown’s, and got him preferment; see Neal, and Strype, and Fuller. Neal makes the Brownists to be only strift Puritans, re- fusing all communion with the Church of England; but this letter makes the preceding notion probable. It is not dated, but by the History it seems to have been written in 1589. |

D 2

“ES Co TIED ð*¾ Vnf]) ³ð? ? r AR gw mn -

• x $*ose4+

52 BOOK IV. ART, VII. SECT. vit.

• setting up a new Jerusalem, in which, probably,

some Jewish civil laws would be adopted: and Lu- ther, in his discourse on the right manner of reading * the Law of Moses, mentions © quosdam imperitos et phanaticos spiritus,” &c. who said, that we ought to conform to the Jewish polity; and afterwards à he calls them indocti, and decepti xax0@nag, and at the fame time tells us how they reason. Civil Laws against Usury will be mentioned by and b vis. Have Christians ever been considered as free from the obligation of the oral Law of Moses? The answer may be given in the affirmative, merely from what has gone before; because those, who are for setting aside the whole Law, must be for setting aside the moral part of it. But, before we proceed farther, it may be proper to settle what is meant by the moral Law: the Decalogue ? or that part which enjoins what is riet in itself ?—lt the Decalogue, are we not obliged to keep our Sabbath on the Saturday, and observe a very great strictness of rest ?—It what is right in itself, is not the propo- fition, we ought to keep the moral Law of Moses, identical! as if we said, we are obliged to that, which 1s universally obligatory,” But this difficulty is rather overcharged; because the Decalogue may

be binding in /ub/ance, though not wholly fo as to circumstances *;:—and it is not an identical proposition

to

f In this work, only every other page is marked: this passage is opposite Fol. 7, Vol. 3, beginning. |

8 Opposite Fol. 9.— Also Fol. , he says, there must be con- fusion and Sects if the unlearned will cry out to the common people, Hoc Dei verbum, Dei Mandatum est.“

h Ephes. vi. r.

i Something of this B. 1. Chap. x1.

• We are always supposed to be able to distinguish between the invariable 2Jence of a Law, and the variable circumstances

| in

%

sn E * i” 2 188 >

[…] N * <5 j 4 EY: ot 4 Wb Fs 3 8 WE — “I 2 3 * * 75 8 = 4 _ * - „ 2 % ® 3 IE * I LS

• 2 _ TINA jt PR nf n EET) 8 af , PETTY pp ” os […] A * . by * Y 1 4 4 1 […] - i * — 5 4 - ad SA : Y as Os. * IS th Y P * 2 5 5 — . 1 4 e . 2 4 6 IEF 82 “AE TI I. cn 1 ; Eat, 2 “YI <A GA «a. War # * Wt 5 1 122 * . 2 8 = “Rr. 7 SE “OY 3 n 0 5 4 “5. I LE 4 40 , b 4 3 ad * * 1 2 FI 2 wa 1 1 4 . 2 a 4 3 2 27 4 . g rn 1 by 1 2 ** 4 dank oe A . bo 2 22

2 1 . * 4 oe ²˙ er Ya PI 1 * 1 Po 7

BOOK IV. vit. 53

to say, that whatever rules of conduct in the Law of Moses are calculated to promote the good of mankind at large, as much as that of a people si- tuated like the Jetos, those rules have the sanction of Revelation : and, where the Rules are sach as have been established by reason and experience, it may be said, that the duties of morality are con- firmed from Heaven. Luther rejoices in such a confirmation *.

But, though clearing up ideas may be useful to us, it does not seem absolutely neceflary for our historical account; the distinction between the De- calogue and the moral Law is in fact much over- looked; and our Article does not make it necessary. Martin Luther speaks * of the Decalogue, as if it was not binding as Decalogue, though we are under obligation to do every thing which it enjoins. — On the other hand, the Assembly of Divines met at Westminster in 1643, in their 7th Article re- vised, have these words, „ By the moral Law, we

understand

1 ; n which it may be executed; as in the Law of conde/cen/ion

executed by our Lord in wa/king his Disciples” et. Other in- stances occur, B. 1. Chap. xi.

The Assembly’s larger Catechism, approved by the Presbyterian Parliament in England, and by Scotlaud, has a pretty enlarged definition of the Lex mcralis ; and affirms, that the moral Law may be looked upon as briefly comprehended in the Decalogue, if we take in what is implied; as prohibitions, threats, &c. The two Catechisms of the 4/embly were confirmed by Parlia- ment ; but it was by the Parliament of 1647:— however, Kin Charles 1. offered reluctantly to licence the smaller, See Neal: Index Catecht/m. |

m Lardner says, on another subject, “though a thing be in itself reasonable, and highly expedient; yet there is nothing that so effectually puts objections to silence, as a divine precept or precedent.” Works, Vol. 11, p. 240

“3

53 […] 5 wv * 2 […] 0 og. * * 2 — = : - […] - > - —— > - -

r

->- — ”

[…] »

| : . ee A mom TTT

“i =

—

— E ects men DA — — =

understand all the ten commandments taken in their full extent“. And the same seems to be im- plied in our Latin Article by the Parenthesis :— © gbedientia mandatorum (que moralia vocantur);“ this parenthesis makes the audi seem to mean © the * commandments in the popular sense: but by what authority it is placed, I do not at present know. Bishop Burnet mentions the ten command- ments as the moral Law; but seems to look beyond them.

If it be asked, what is the % idea of the moral Law of Moses, we answer, theie need be no diff. culty about it; our Article gives no definition of it: every one therefore may ule his own sense. And, it we are bound to obey every thing enjoined in the Law of Moses, which is for the general good of mankind (as we certainly are), what does it signify whether it is in the Decalogue or not ?— No one conceives the moral Law of Moses to be the whole of morality. - But we shall have occasion to mention the Decalogue again.—Our business now 1s History

The Autinomians, followers of Agricola, whom Martin Luther rebukes, being thole who wished to set aside the whole ® Law, did not need to be here mentioned again as setting aside the moral part of it, were it not for introducing the senti- ments of Agricola with regard to the Decalogue. These are not ealy to clear up; but Mofheim seems

to

o See Articles of England revised in 1643 by Assembly of Divines; in Appendix to Neal’s Hist. Puritans.— See also Ad- vice of the Assembly to Parliament, Chap. 19; and Doctrina, Kc. p. 80.

There are three words in the Article, Law, Precepts, Com- mand imentse the two first are set aside; the last retained.

1 Bennett gives this Parenthesis, and mentions some copies which have two commas instead of it.

© Luther’s Works, Vol. 1, Fol. 400, p 2.

— * . . 1 * 1 _ […] . 0 +: ee Fey 4 - e ö * * Ky ba A” N — a * 6 “al 1 > KG . 1 / * 1 2 4 * A . 4 i p r . 4 e 4 1 N - 4 F 5 2 5 ALY Ks N | 1 ‘s 12 ok ä = 2 . F E 1 by FRY 2 “I 3 Do Tg ST * - FT We 2 PES as . 2 . 8 r 2 . r # N 3 1 . ed e ie . eee DA ESA 4s 4 * , * : * 8 3 * r ? *

r a «7 bot do fs acts a ly

2 * * 1 Ls N N “4 £5 . […] EAN „ OD Ig

L 3 * PP _ bs Fe £8 -F 1 I | Ne

B32 Oo vo ates eee

at A.

to have succeeded as well as might be expected in laying them together: to him * therefore I will refer. — Only adding, that . possibly Luther’s idea of the Decalogue*, as such, might help Agricola torward ; though Luther blames him and others for setting aside the Law of Moses at large, in order to free themselves from the moral Law in particular. |

In this point of view, the Antinomians, whom Luther blames, seem most nearly connected with those, of which Luther himself is reckoned one: and the forts seem to differ rather in degree, than in kind, when we observe them towering the value and authority of any Law in order to get rid of obligations to good works.

It may be worth our while here to read a case, which is mentioned by Strype in his Life“ of Mit- gift, and afterwards more succinctly in his Annals*. Though Luther would undoubredly have blamed the Antinomians or Libertines mentioned in this case, yet it seems as if his own principles, followed on to a great length, might have led into the error of rejecting the moral Law of Moses.— If any An- tinomians wanted to settle the maxim, that a man, who has true Christian Faith, cannot fin, they would have to combat the authority of the Decalogue, and, in the heat of battle, would make the fiercest attacks upon it they were able. |

We may place here, as well as any where, the notion of the Familists, that as many as receive

Jesus Chriit and his Doctrine, do fulfil and keep | and

36 BOOK IV. AR r. VII. SECT. Vit.

and do all the moral Law given by God to Moses !:“ this seems nearly related to the notion of the later Antinomians. The words quoted are part of the assertions made and signed by Anthony Randall, for which he was deprived by the Bishop of Exeter in 1581, of the Rectory of Lydford.

The Auabaptisis have“ also been here mentioned as aiming to set aside the whole Law ; 1t may there- fore seem, that they need not be mentioned again, as defirous to set aside a part of it: nevertheless, their morals seem to deserve particular mention. Sleidan gives an account of a man, who cut off his brother’s head, in the presence of their father and mother, and persuaded them, that God had com- manded him to do so*. Those, who had to defend suchan action, mult have frequent occasion todisclaim the authority of the sixth commandment.—In the same history, we find accounts of the Anabapt ists allowing of Polygamy, which 1s an offence against the seventh Commandment :—their King puts one of his Queens to death with his own hand : as he does a prisoner of war, with great coolness: repre- senting him as being guilty equally with Judas.

Mr. William Chi/liugworth, celebrated as a lo- gical © realoner, mathematician, and accidentally as an engineer, refused to sublcribe to our 30 Ar- tides ; for one reason, because he did not believe the morality of the fourth Commandment %0 Yet our

| Article

Perhaps a good Christian avould, as such, obey all the ten commandments; but yet it does not seem right to deny all authority to the Decalogue.

[…]

2 Reform. Legum de Hr, Cap. 4.

b At San-gall in Switzerland. p. 116.

0 1 © See Neal, Index. In Biogr. Britannica there is a Life of um,

• 4 This expression is in Neal; who also says, in another place, j that the Assembly of Divines had been blamed for allowing in i their Confession the morality of the Sabbath.“

[…]

BOOK Iv. 57

Article requires no assent to the morality of the Decalogue in every circumstance. Any part of it, which 1s not strictly moral, might be set aside as ceremonial. It this great man allowed, that pe- riodical intervals of rest, and periodical exercises of moral and religious sentiments, are for the general good of mankind, he needed not to have scrupled arbitrary modes of promoting these ends in parti- cular cases, any more than he needed to question the morality of the fifth Commandment, of giving honour to Parents, because the reward propoled to obedience is /ength of days in a particular country.

But Chi//ingworth seems to rank with hilton and Foolston; we may add Cheynell, in another way; men of great intellectual abilities and attainments, overheated by wrong methods of pursuing religious knowledge.

VIII. From the history of this seventh Article, we pass to what may be called the Explanation : the intention of which is, so to arrange the matter contained in it, that we need not prove any unac- ceftary propositions: and that those, which we do prove, may be as clear and unembarrassed as pol- sible.

Indeed our present subject is one, which will employ our most extensive acquaintance with things divine; and require our best discretion in the management of it. In other subjects, men are different in having different feelings, and in chusing different points of view; but here, difference con- fists chiefly in degrees of solid, useful kuowledge. God hath spoken to man at sundry times and in divers manners. All the dispensations of Heaven are to be contemplated together; and the suitableness of each to the circumstances, in which it was given, is to be taken into consideration. With regard to the Mosaic Law in particular, it should be seen,

how

how it suited the times, in which it was published, how all after times; how the Jews, how all man- kind. To repeal a Law of God by the reason of man, is a solemn and awful thing: what but the fear of retaining what was intended to be removed, could possibly make any one venture upon it?— But to proceed to our business of fimplilying.

1. Though the first proposition of our Article, « The Old Testament is not contrary to the New,” seems as if it would bring on a comparison of the whole of both, yet, since the reason assigned is, that both teach everlasting Life through Christ, they need be compared in nothing elle.

2. In order to shew, that the Old Testament 1s not contrary to the New, with regard to eternal happiness through Christ, we need not examine them bot} ; there can be no doubt as to the New; we need therefore only examine the O/d: and see, whether in any sense it can be said to offer mankind everlasting happiness through the medium of Christianity.

3. As Christ has clearly brought Life and im- mortality to light, if we prove, that the Old Tes- tament promises Christianity, that Christianity which we profess, it must follow, that it promises also immortality, or © everlasting life.”

4. But, though we are only to examine the O/d Testament, yet it must not be thought, that we need prove from the Old Testament, that Christ is the only Mediator ; we only affirm, in a kind of parenthesis, that he is so. Moses was © a kind of Mediator, but it cannot be said, that he zs one: nor indeed could he ever be properly called a me- diator between God and Man; or even between God and the feed* of Abraham; but only between God and one particular nation.

5. When

© Lev. xxvi. 46. Deut. v. 5, f See Mr. Locke on Gal. iii. 20.

BOOK Iv. 59

5. When we say, that the Jewi/: Scriptures offered to mankind everlasting life by Christ, we must not be supposed to affirm precisely who accepted or even understood this offer. An offer is often made, when it is not accepted, or even understood, for want of due attention. It is no way neceflary, that the Jewish people should understand every thing that is oftered through their Scriptures to mankind at large. It 1s the Christian who 1s to determine whether ke can see, with the help of both Old and Vero Testa» ment, that een g life through Christ was in- timated to mankind under the old Dispensation.

6. Lastly, It is not attirmed in this Article, that a future state is announced in the Dispensation of Moses, strictly fo called. If everlasting life by Christ is announced to mankind in any part of the Old Testament, that is sufficient. As it is the opinion supported in that masterly work, the Di- vine Legation of Moses, that Moses docs not offer more than temporal rewards to the Jewish People, it seems proper to observe, that such an opinion is not inconsistent with our Article. This Bishop Warburton bath himself proved. Many of the Tewish Prophets, as well as the Patriarchs before the Mosaic Dispensation, nay MoJes himself, might believe in Christ, and yet the People under him might only be governed by rewards and punish- ments of a temporal nature. David“ lived 500 years after Moses, and the Prophets considerably later, down to 430 years before Christ; during these goo years the doctrine of a future state was dawning, and about 1 50 years before Christ Bishop

Warburton

£ See Div. Leg. Index, “ Article.”

h Div. Leg. 8vo. Vol. 4, p. 199.

i Creation about 4000 before Christ Abraham about 2000 -— Moles about 1 509 David about 1000 — Prophets (Jonah

60 BOOK 1V. vii.

Warburton owns that the doctrine of a future fate was a national doctrine amongst the Jews.

Bishop Warburton has observed a difference be- tween saying, the Old Testament is“ nor contrary” to the New, and saying, the Old Testament is * the same” with the New; namely, in the manner of proposing eternal life through Christ. Two different parts of ove plan may be very different, but cannot be contrary. Chryiostom seems to have had the same feeling when he {ays, J. ODο Lopov fi OVOfAGET WY, GU MAN NS ous” evavriwors* 70 Y%8 N. ou £% TY XKAWS Y r THAKOD, Hom. 56. Edit. Sav. Tom. 5, p. 376, cited by Nicholls on the Articles.

It may seem strange, that the omission of the sanctions of futurity should afford an argument in favour of the Divine Legation of Moses ; but suppose a person to assume the character of a Law- giver, and to profess, that he would undertake to reward every one, immediately, exactly in proper- tion to his good conduct, with all the good things of thepresent world, health, long lite, pleasure, riches, honours; we should say, no human power can do this; he who can act up to such pretensions, must have some supernatural influence. How could he know men’s merits with exactness? how could he

rovide the means of rewarding them ? how could

he stop the ravages of the earthquake, fire, light-

ning, inundation? of the pestilence that walketh

in

and Hosea) about 800; Jsaial began about when Rome was

built, 753 A. Chr. Daniel about 5 50 - Malachi about 430, end of Old Testament— Maccabees began about 1 50.

I have found it convenient to reduce the principal æras prior to the Christian æra, into the above numbers; the regularity of the divisions of time not only assists the memory, but strikes the mind as exhibiting a regularity of plan in Divine Provi- dence : neither does it seem materially inaccurate to conceive the time of Abraham as dividing the whole duration before the

coming of Christ, into two equal parts; the time of David as dividing the duration between Abraham and Christ into two

equal parts: and so on.

in darkness, and the sickness that destroyeth at noon day? And if, besides his power, he shewed a propriety 1n what he did, shewed that his plan was part of a wise and comprehensive scheme to communicate happinels to a great distance, of place vr time; certainly our belief in the truth of his pretensions would be much more strong. We should perceive, that such an one had a much more difficult task than one, who had only to fel his Disciples, that, if they would adhere to him, they should be rewarded hereafter.

ix. From Explanation we proceed to Proof. — And here our first proposition is, properly, . The Old Testament is not contrary to the New:“ —but, by what has been said in the explanation, this pro- position is equivalent to the following; “ Ever- lasting Life is offered to mankind by Christ” in the Old Testament. This proposition might be proved by declarations of the Old Testament, as well as by the Types of futurity there mentioned. Bur, with regard to Types, they were treated in the first * Book, and, 1n our reading of Bishop Pearson on the Creed, we find no part of our Saviour’s History, which is not shewn to have been pre- signified by them: and, with regard to declarations, promites, predictions, perhaps we may as well take them into our proof of the next proposition, con- cerning the actual expectation of the most eminent Jews; for though it is one thing to shew, that the Old Testament does offer to mankind through Christ everlasting life, and another, that the lead- ing Jews or Patriarchs understood such offer, and Lr expectations upon it; — yet, as every proof of the offer must afford some argument for its being

acknowledged, k Chap. xv11, Sect. xv111.

1 See Advertisement to the printed Syllabus, or Heads of Lectures, ist, 2d, and 3d Editions,

62 BOOK IV. AR r. VII. SECT, X.

acknowledged, we may as well incorporate the proofs of the two propositions together.

x. Our second proposition then is, The Old Fathers did” not“ look only for !ran/itory promises.” Who are meant by the © old Fathers” here, has been already ® shewn from the Institutes of Cal- vin“. |

We are first to give some account of the Pro- mises, which were made under the Old Testament : and secondly of the expectations, which those pro- mises raised in the Jewish Fathers“.

First the Promises made. — Gen. iii. 15. has been, in all tunes, considered as a promise of the Meftah, though one to be particularly understood only by future ages. The Scripture may be considered as referring to it, when the Serpent, or Draco, is spoken of (Rev. xii. 9.) as having the qualities of the evil Spirit or Satan. But to keep to the Old Testament; we have a Teries of promises made to Abraham, and relating to his posterity. One on the calling of Abraham, Gen. xii. 3 - One on ap- pointment of Circumcision as a seal of the Covenant; Gen, xvii. Which is accompanied with the first Promise that Sarah shall bear a Child. Another on the dismission of IAmael; Gen. xxi. 12.,—Another on the sacrifice of Isaac; Gen. xxii. 18.—These were all made to Abraham himself; —afterwards there was a renewal, to IJaar, Gen. xxvi. 24. and another to Jacob, Gen. xxviii. 14.— To which we may add, Jacob’s dying Benediction, Gen. xlix. 10.

These, with Balaam’s wapatonn, Numb. xxiv. 17. and the prediction of Moses, Deut. xvill. 15.

may

un Set. Iv. v e That great man.” - Lard. Vol. 11, p. 241. o Pearson on the Creed, Article 11th, (p. 745, Quarto; or

p. 379, Folio,) gives arguments to prove, that the Resurrection of the dead was revealed under the Law.

; +

BOOK IV. x. 63

may constitute a class; as occurring occasionally in the Aistorical Books of the Old Testament.

This class of declarations will scarcely fail to have an effect upon us, who have seen the coming of the Messiah, whatever effect they might have on the Jews.

Another class of declarations may consist of the prophetic Psalms, the 2d, 16th, 22d, 45th, 102d, 11oth, &c; and of those Books, which are more commonly acknowledged to be prophetical.—To enter into these predictions minutely at present, so as to get a satisfactory knowledge of them, would detain us too long. I must therefore refer to the 17th Chapter of our first Book, and to our Read- ings in Bishop Pearson. But it seems as if I should not pass over the information, which is given us in the New Testament, in order to assist us in our in- terpretation of the Old. Our Lord tells us, John v. 39. that the Old Scriptures © testify of“ him; and ver. 46, that Moses wrote of him. Accs iii. 22, or vii. 37, refers to Deut. xviii. 1 5.— Acts xiii. 23, interprets the promises made to the Seed of David; and the 32d, 33d, and following verses shew, that the second and sixteenth Psalms were intended to be understood as prophetical. Rom. iii. 21, 22. The Righteousness of God” is spoken of as being © witnessed by the Law and the Pro- phets,” —< even the righteousness of God, which is by Faith of Jesus Christ.“— Gal. iii. 16. makes the Seed of Abraham, to be“ Crit.“ And ver. 24. informs us, that © the Law was our School- master, to bring us unto Chri/?*.” — These passages being sufficient to shew the nature of the promises made under the old Dispensation, we may proceed to the effect of such promises, on the expectations

of

2 Tim. ill. 1 5. the oi Scriptures save through Crit. Here repeat Rev. xii. .

64 BOOK 1V. ART, VII. SECT. x.

of the most eminent Jews, or the © old Fathers ;” observing only, in consideration of our havin

omitted prophecies in this place, that these par fages of the New Testament, even without an attempt to interpret the Old, afford the CAristiau sufficient reason for believing, that “ everlasting Life” zs, in the Old Testament, offered to mankind by Christ. No,

The negative form of expression used in our Ar- tide, seems to arise from the nature of the thing expressed: it denies, that the Old Fathers did look only for transitory promises.” It does not affirm, that they assured themselves of eternal Life, or that they had difinf conceptions concerning the nature of the Dispensation to come; it seems rather to represent them as having their minds elated, and their views enlarged, by what was com- municated to them, as looking forward to something great, noble, beneficial; something which the Di- vine Counsels had prepared for mankind, some august and awful though benevolent plans, to which they had not for a moment the presumption of conceiving any limit.

That thele eminent men, to whom the promises were magle, {should have some idea of their com-

letion, is what I find myself much more inclined to believe than the contrary ;—and that is enough for our Article. Are ve, from certain expressions, able to see, that promises of Life through Christ have been made, and were those, to whom they were made, totally blind to the meaning of thote very same expressions ?—The reasoning of our Ar- tide is the fame as that which we now are using : « Eyerlasting Lite 1s offered to mankind by Christ” even in the Old Testament ; ** wherefore” those, who were instrumental in making the offer, could not be wholly ignorant of the nature of the offer : they

they could not be fo ignorant, as to confine the bene - fits of it to mere earthly luxurięs.— If we were to put ourselves into the place of Abraham, or Moses, or David, we could not conceive it possible. Could Abraham receive such assurances as he did, on eve great and solemn occasion, attended with so many striking circumstances, and fancy, that his poste- rity were only to be blessed with abundance of milk and honey? Could Moses receive the Law in the manner he did, and govern the Jews as he did, and when, his mind full of the most sublime conceptions, he came to give intimations concern- ing futurity, mean some limited futurity, which he could discern the end of? its blessings wholly to be confined to such a life as the present? this is the less likely, in the cases of Abraham and Mo- ses, on account of the supernatural communication, which they held with the Supreme Being. Must they not sispect, at least, something beyond the transitory things of this life? With regard to Da- vid and the Prophets, as Prophets, the cafe seems clearer still : few will be inclined to consider them as foretelling mechanically things, of which they had no idea: yet, if we only allow, that David, and the Prophets after him, looked for any thing more than tranfitory promises, or even suspected any thing more, we allow enough for our Article ?, — But P We might ask, how could Balaam apply what he utters,

by force of inspiration, to mere worldly enjoyments? He * chink the fate of kingdoms a very grand thing, but do not his words, by a comparison with other phrases, bear an higher import? Balak was afraid for his dominiont; Israel (and Judah in particular, perhaps, might be intended by the Lion) would overcome all resistance, — get a settled government; but, if Balaam had meant only to express this, would his extacies have | been needed? would his sublimity have been natural? St.

Peter (2 Pet. iii. 15.) calls him a Prophet : but see Div. Leg. Index. Balaam. |

VOL. 111. E

’ [

66 BOOK 1V. x.

But the authority of the New Te/fament must have the greatest weight. Therefore we will select a few paslages relating to Abraham, Moses, and David, and then a few relating to the eminent persons of the Old Dispensation collectively.— As to Abraham, John viii. 56, seems decisive; whenever it was that he saw the day of Christ : but I must confess, that Bishop Warburton’s account * appears to me not only ingenious but probable.

Gal. iii. 8. says, that the Scripture “ preached before (wgeorunyyeAiouro) the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, < In thee shall all nations be blessed.” —A man is always {supposed to have some idea of what is preached to him.—Abraham was promised Christ, Gal. iii. 16. and the reasoning in that and the 17th verse seems to me to imply, that Abraham had a competent understanding of the promise and cove- nant made with him. How can any one be a party in a promise or covenant, without some know- ledge of its nature? As to Moses, it is not so easy to conceive, that he wrote of Christ, without any idea of him, as that he had some conception of the person and character which he was describing : and this will be confirmed, by comparing John v. 46. with Acts 11. 22. and vii. 37.—As to David, the expression Acts 11. 31. is clear; © he seein this before, spake of the Resurrection of Christ.” Things much to our purpose are also said of the Tewish Fathers collectively: consult Acts in. 21, 24.— Acts xii. 32.—Heb. xi. in several places; where, though some of the instances may be as late as the Maccabees, others are plainly earlier ; 2s Ver. 10, 13, 16, & c |

1 Pet.

4 See Div. Leg. Index; or B. 6. SeR. 5. also B. 1. Chap.

XV11, of this. | © It may be useful to see these proofs in a small compass. Promises

BOOK IV. ART. VIt. SECT. Xt. 67

1 Pet. i. 10—12. should also be read: and | lastly, as clearly expressing the gradual display of God’s will to mankind, the three last verses of the Epistle to the Romans.

xi. Our next Proposition is, that Christians are not bound to retain and obey the ceremonial Law of Moses. Something on this head may be deduced from the Old Testament, and therefore addressed to the Fews,—Jer. xxxi. 31—37, is a wonderful prediction; in reading it, we should remark, that Jehovah (or Lord) is the proper name of the God of the Jews; as A/ttoreth was of

the * Idol of the Sidonians ; or Chemosh of the Moab- ites: we should also remark the internal or spiritual nature of the new Law*; and moreover what is implied in God’s being set forth as superintending the Universe. This prophecy seems to denote, that, at some time or other, there would be a change : whatever be the time, change 1s inconsistent with the eternity of the Law, of which some Jews have boasted. Indeed some Jews have expected a new | Law

Promises made, —Gen. ili. 15. Serpent.— xii. 3. call of Abr.

v. xvii. circumcision,—xx1i. 12. dismission of Ishmael. ——xx11. 18. offering up of Isaac.—xxvi. 3, 24. renewal to Isaac.— YXVill. 14. ditto to Jacob.—xlix. 10,—Jacob’s benediction. — Numb. xxiv. 17. Balaam.— Deut. xviu. 15.— ad Class, David and Prophets, (Isaiah, &c.)-—Psalms ii. xvi. xxii. xlv. cii. cx. &c. Prophetic Books as usual.

Promises applied. — John v. 39. both Life and Christ. v. 46, Moses.—AQts iii. 22, Moses, or vii. 37.—Xiii 23, 32, 33. David.——Rom. iii. 21.— Gal. iii. 16, 24.— Rev. xii. .

Expectation raised.— In Abraham — John viii. 56. —- Rom. iv. 20.— Gal. ili. 8, 16, &c.— In Moses— John v. 46, — with Acts iii. 22.— vii. 37.— In David — Acts ii. 31. — In the Fathers collectively— Luke x. 24.— Acts iii. 21, 24.— xiii. 32. eb. xi. 13, &c. 16.—1 Pet. i. 1012 — Con- clusion— Rom. xvi. 25, 26.

• 1 Kings xi. 33.

See Div, Leg. 6. 6. 2.

E 2

68 BOOK Iv.

Law to take place on the coming of the Mefliah *; but others, even in early times, have flattered themselves * with this eternity.

It might be intelligible to the Jews, that, if their Religion were the only true one, its ritual must be temporary, because those at a great dis- tance from Judea could not conform to it: consult Exod. xiii. 14, 17,—and Deut. xvi. 167. And moreover, because only the Descendants of Aaron could officiate in it as Pries. See Exod. xxviii. 1. —XXIx. 9.—Lev. i. 5, 7, 8.—Numb. xvi. 7. with the account of the Rebellion of Korah,

umb. xvi.) and 1 Chron. xxiii. 13.—Can it be conceived or allowed to be impossible, that man- kind should profess the only true Religion?

Extension and universality of true Religion 1s inconsistent with the Jewish ceremonial Law; yet such extension is not only /ikely to be provided for, but even foretold under the Jewish Dispensation itself. Read the 2d and the 110th Psalms. —Isaiah 11. 2.—At the conclusion of Isaiah’s Prophecy, it is said, that the Lord will take some * persons © for Priests and Levites:“ as also, that he will make new Heavens and new Earth, which, in prophetic language, means a new scheme * of Government,

or

v Chandler on Proph. p. 270, as before, Sect. v.

Y See Lardner about St. Paul’s vow : Works, Vol. », p. 209; but evasions are not to be put on the footing of Laws.— Or, if it should be said, that some Jews dispensed with the Law through necessity, yet it cannot be conceived, that cases of ne- cessity should be more common than cases, in which men could worship regularly. :

2 Isaiah Ixvi. 21, 22. Ferisalem is mentioned verse 20; but may it not mean the true or general Jerusalem?*—the head place of worship, in any Church?

making

BOOK Iv. ART. VII, SECT. Xt. 69

or a new People. —Consult also Mal. i. 11.—and

compare If. xi. 9, 10. with Heb. ii. 14.—See also

Daniel ix. 27. and Zeph. it. 11.— The Jewish

mode of divine worship could not therefore be petual, because it could not be wniversal.

All the Jewish Prophecies are authentic to Christians ; but to Christians it may be proved, not only that the Jewish ceremonial Law was in- tended to be superseded, but that it is actually su- perseded by Christianity. - The Epistle to the Galatians was written on purpose to prove this“; but we will take a few paslages of the New Testa- ment separately. Gal. ui. 3. may, to Christians, serve as a kind of general principle, —See also Acts xv. © 24.—Gal. ili. 2 5. — Gal. iv. 1—10,—Col. ii. 16, 17. (or from ver. 11.) —Heb. vii. 12.— viii. 8, 13.—X. 1.

As

making an universal religion are collected; as they are in Pear- son on the Creed, p. 89, Fol. — This sense of Heavens was mentioned in our Chapter on Prophecy, |

d See Locke’s account.

© ‘The more Acts xv. is studied here, the better: the four things, which the Council of Jerusalem reguęst the Gentile con- verts to abstain from, are not wrong or immoral in themselves, but such as would particularly hurt the Few converts, and perhaps bring the Gentile converts into some danger and dish- culty. The Jewish converts would be much focked to see the Gentile Christians eat blood, or things frangled, or partake of feasts on heathen sacrifices. While the Gentile Christians used their liberty in these things, it seemed impossible for them and the Jewish Christians to coalesce, to become one family or fra- ternity.— As to the fornication here meant, it 1s not the wice commonly called by that name; nor any wice ; it seems, by Scripture language, to be something some way connected with Idolatiy.— Lardner thinks it may be making Alliances with Idolaters:— he has many texts which favour him: 1 Cor. v. 1, has not caught my eye as being amongst them. (Lard. Vol. 11th, p. 333.)——And so part of our Scriptures too may“ vanish away:”=—]t should be observed, that this Council of Jerusalem absolutely refused to ask the Gentile converts to be circumcised e ——that was repeal enough of the Law of Circumcision, for Christians,

e

70 BOOK iv. X11.

. As there has not been perhaps any express abro- gation of the ceremonial Law, Mr. Locke’s three Notes on Eph. 1i. 15. might here be read to ad- vantage.

X11. The next proposition is, © the civil pre- cepts” of the Mosaical Law © ought” not © of ne- cessity to be received in any commonwealth.” — In- fances of these may be seen in Exodus, Chapters xxi. and xxii.— It can scarce be said of these, that they are calculated to produce the greatest possible happiness of all nations, in all ages, whatever im- provements may take place. Civil Laws should be peculiar to each people, and should depend upon climate, situation for commerce, temper, prejudice, populousness, fertility, &c; they should impose no restraints, except where probable evils are apprehended. This might be urged to Jews, in order to give them an idea, that, in the natural course of things, their civil Laws must lose their propriety, and therefore their force. Indeed it is not easy to understand how they themselves can obey them, since the destruction of Jerusalem. — It might moreover be urged, that the departure of the Sceptre from Judah and of the legislative power, was soon * foretold : and that the cities appointed for? refuge have no longer any being.

To Christians this will have still more weight, as they are more enlarged in their notions. It is indeed so clear, that the Apostles seem to take it for granted. Compare Acts xxv. 9, 10, 25, with Deut. xvii. 8.— See also Rom. xiii. 1, &c. and Tit. m1. 1. These relate to St. Paul; who offers prudential and conscientious motives ; and seems earnest to clear Christians, sometimes called Gali-

leans,

4 What it is here said might be urged to Jews, may of course be urged to all judaizing Christians.

Gen. xlix. 10. Numb. xxxv. 13.

BOOK: IV. 7

leans, from the scandal of favouring the seditious principles of Judas of Galilee;—or of refusing tribute to the Roman Emperor. St. Paul uses ge- neral moral reasoning to inforce a provision * for ministers of religion ; though he borrows a prin- ciple from Scripture.—St. Peter also seems to take for granted, that different civil governments are lawful ; see 1 Pet. ii. 12, 13 ;—and even the dif- ferent expressions * of Peter and Paul seem to arise from the different forms of Government, under which those persons lived, to whom they wrote. St. Peter, writing to Afiatics, says plainly, that they were to submit to the King, the despotic Monarch, as supreme; — St. Paul, writing to Romans, who had a fort of Consular government in theory, and great confusion in practice, inculcates submission ny to higher powers, and to powers actually sub- fisting.

In Deut. XXIV. I. We have a Mosaic Law con- cerning Divorces; our Saviour, Matt. xix, declares this Law to be suited to the Jews peculiarly, but to be different both from that which had preceded, and * that which was to follow: though all three of divine appointment. Our Lord may be said perhaps to have repealed the law of retaliation, as one of a severity no longer necessary; the only difficulty is, that what he substitutes ’ is indeter- minate, or a duty of imperfect obligation: —how- ever he clearly commands, that Tribute should be paid to the Roman Emperor. |

X111. Our last proposition is, no Christian is free from the moral Law of Moses. — Here we have

no

© See Bp. Sherlock’s Discourses, Vol. 4, p. 349 * 1 Cor. ix. 7— 14.

i Compare 1 Pet. ii. 27, with Rom. xii. 1=—7. Matt. xix. 8, 9. | Matt. v. 38, &c.

E 4

72 BOOK 1V. ART. VII. SECT: XIII

no controversy with the Jews; we argue only with Christians.

It, by the moral Law of Moses, be meant those rules of conduct, which are parts of the Law of Nature, there can be no need of proof; such rules are obligatory without any sanction from Moses. Only some change in human nature can repeal them”. But some have thought the moral Law meant the Decalogue, which will make 1t proper for us to say something of the Decalogue.—However, as this distinction is often neglected, we may first make a few remarks without attending to it.—Ir seems plain from Scripture, that something of the Law was to be retained ;—see Matt. v. 17, 18”. Rom. iii. 31.—In Rom. vii. ver. 12, 14, 16, the Law is called holy, good, spiritual;—the fame 1 Tim. i. 8. where the instances in the following verse are moral. This must mean the moral Law; though any code of Laws may be called good, as a standard, of which actions fall short —Christ, in his Sermon on the Mount, corre&s abuses of the Law; that Law which is corrected, is to be con- tinued.—No body of Laws can be totally repealed, because it must be the intention of some Laws in every code, to inforce virtue. That mercy is to be preferred to sacrifice, or moral duties to posi- tive, when there is any interference, is a principle of Christianity. See Matt. ix. 13, and xii. 7; both passages from Hosea vi. 6. which seems to confirm our separation of the ceremonial Law of Moses from the moral. - When our Saviour tells us, that our righteousness mult exceed * the right-

eousness m See Div. Leg. 6. 5. p. 375, 8vo, Note, quotation from

Rimius; or Rimius’s Mer ative, p- 63. | n Wotton understands this to mean, that Christ as the Anti- rye came to fulfil the Types of the Mosaical Religion. *

Vol. 1, p. 304. 0 Matt, v. 20.

BOOK Iv. ART. VII, SECT. XITE. 73

eousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, he must imply, that we must give up no moral rule which they observed.

Bur, as some have thought, that the moral Law of Moses means the Decalogue, we will offer a few remarks upon that. There is a mixture of moral and ceremonial in it, which perplexed the great Chillingworth*,—Of the ten commandments, the first four relate to Religion, the six others to the social duties of men. The first is about Polytheism; the second about Idolatry; the third about Perjury; the fourth about setting apart times for things spi- ritual. These four make the first Table. — The fifth is about fi/ial obedience; the sixth about 1nju- ries to men’s persons; the seventh abour violation of the rights of marriage; the eighth about injuries respecting property; the ninth about injuries re- specting reputation; the tenth about the regulation of our sentiments.

All these may be called moral, though moral is sometimes opposed to religious; but there are moral duties of religion, that is, such duties respecting the Supreme Being, as result from our best use of our faculties; rules of conduct, arising in the pursuit of general happiness.— The fourth commandment seems moral in substauce, and ceremonial in circum- stance®. Its principle is, the utility of ref or re- freshment, and of periodically reviving good senti- ments. Suppose this principle to operate, it would want determining to some certain modes, but so do other moral principles; as that human beings should not act for themselves, till they come to years. of discretion. There might have been, whether there ever was or not, such a thing as a Sabbath in natu- ral religion; if weeks could have got settled by a

division

p Sect. vii. 4 Before, Sect. v11, alfa Book 1. Gi zap. xi. ONY Vs

74 BOOK IV, xIII.

division of lunar months. Yet even then a good deal of time would have been requisite. Men form moral rules on perceiving, that, if such a thing was done, some good must-follow: But the good of making periods of religious rest would but operate slowly.—However, if it be allowed, that such an in- stitution as our Sabbath might have taken place on moral principles, after any time, however great, that is enough to establish the morality of the fourth commandment, as to its substance. Indeed, if we allow the other nine to be moral, it will be difficult to deny this to be so, considering the peculiar and awful manner, in which the ten were published together.

I suppose, that our Lawgivers enact the observ- ance of our Sabbath, on the idea, that a Sabbath was ordained immediately upon the Creation, and therefore belonged to all mankind*: and with a design to fall into the usual manner of reckoning time by * weeks; and to adapt the practice of the first Christians in marking the succession of the new Law, and in celebrating, at the same time, the Resurrection of their Lord: induced also, in a principal manner, by the probable and the tried benefits of the Institution’.

What our Saviour says, that the Sabbath was made for Man, and not Man for the Sabbath, to- gether with the occasion of his remark, may confirm what we have laid down, both as to the morality

| of

? Heylin, in his History of the Sabbath, denies that it was in- stituted at the Creation, or that Heathens can be said to have reckoned by weeks. Motton, in his book on the Misna, opposes the opinion of Heylin, in the first matter,

s See also the renewal, Exod. xx. 10,—and all Sabbatical texts collected by Wotton in his Misna*

© See Mr, Mede, Book 1. Disc, xv. p. 57, quoted at the end of Wotton’s Misna. | u Mark ii. 27.

BOOK IV. ART. VII, SECT. x111. 75

of the substance of the fourth commandment, and as to the ceremonial nature of its particular cir- cumstances.

We have already observed, that the fifth com- mandment, though of perpetual obligation, is enforced by a temporary motive in the Jewish Decalogue.

Bishop Burnet calls the tenth commandment only secondarily moral. I would not dispute about a word, but yet the management of our sentiments 1s an essential part of Virtue; as will appear under the ninth Article. Dr. Balguy, in his * System of Morals, before quoted, of which I entertain a very high opinion, has five Chapters on Sentiments.

As the name Decalogue implies ten command- ments, the Romanists make ten: yet they get rid of the second, through fear, probably, of making a difficulty about their Images, and seem to divide the tenth into two. In a church about 35 miles S. E. of Paris (Moret) are the ten commandments in old French; round the chancel: © the second is entirely left out: the ninth is, —give not up yourself to the Flesh, and marry but once. — the tenth,—de- fire not the goods of others, and lye not at all.“ I have two prayer-books, in which the same in substance 1s in French verse, but neither of them contains a

regular Decalogue, though one is large, and contains all the three“ Creeds.

xiv. All * Book 111. Chap. vi.

This is from the MS. travels of a Friend. The lines in the Prayer-books are,

L*zuvre de chair ne A . en mariage seulement.

There has been a different splitting, made for the same pur- pose; to keep ten commandments in number, and leave out one

of

76 BOOK IV. AR r. VII. SECT. XIV.

x1v. All our propositions are now proved: yet sometimes considerations of fitness, propriety, &c. satisfy the mind as much as regular proofs ; let us therefore enter on a few such considerations.

So lost was the world in Idolatry, and the cor- ruptions attending it, that nothing less than a T heocracy seems to have been capable of bringing any part of mankind to a sense of the true God; hence the Jews were put under such a Government; they were governed by Laws coming evidently from Heaven, and executed by men of sacred characters, endued with supernatural powers. Their minds were kept continually intent upon their God, by a number of significant ceremonies; they were under continual discipline, and more quickly rewarded or punished than they could be as mere men. Nothing could be better adapted than such a plan, to keep them from connexions with their Idolatrous neigh- bours“. - And it is such a plan, as St. Paul might well compare to the Discipline of a Schoolmaster* : when youth are formed, they must be incessantly watched and employed, encouraged, checked, re- warded and punished. The schoolmaster trusts his scholars out of his fg? but little; he gives them precept upon ß6recept, line upon line; © here a little and there a little:“ he is more a friend to them than he seems; his ultimate views he mentions but seldom; it is distant good at which he chiefly aims;

and

of our ten. See Heylin’s History of the Sabbath, p. 351.—or Part 1. Chap. iii. Sect. iii. Hehchius in Lev. 1. 6. c. 26. is quoted as saying, that the fourth commandment ought not to be in the Decalogue; and as splitting the i into two, in order to get rid of the fourth.——But the manner in which this is done I cannot sec; Hesychius not being at hand. |

M. Luther, in his Dissertation above-mentioned, (Sect. vi.) shews himself sensible of this,

b Gal. iii. 24.— Hosea v. 2. where the Lx x. have l.

© If, XXvili. 10.

and when he punishes, it is with a view of prevent- ing distant evil.

This account of ‘the Law of Moses must shew it to be divine; but yet our reverence for it, and our admiration of it must be heightened, when we re- fleet, that those very ordinances, which were so useful at first, were also types and proofs of the subsequent and ultimate dispensation.

By this train of thought, we may reconcile those passages of scripture, which describe the Law as carnal, with those which call it spiritual. As the Jews were to have a great number of observances, and were at the same time to prepare the way for a more perfect dispensation, it was wisely contrived, that their observances should be Zypical : thele, as duties, would be carnal; as presignifications, spiritual. — Compare Rom. vii. 14. & 4. with Heb. 1x, 9, IO. 24.—X. I vii. 15, 16. The general thought is exprefled 1 Cor. xv. 46.—2 Cor. iii. 13, 14.

Things being thus prepared, a new Dispensation might be grafted on the Old: In which the reasons of temporal sanctions ceasing, the sanctions them- selves would cease, and of coutse the extraordinary providence necessary to support them. And an or- dinary providence would take place, and men would be directed to look forward to a future Life.

And, as we may discern propriety,and fitness in the zwhole of the Mosaic Religion, so may we in distin& parts. Deut. xxii. 5. has been thought to be intended, not only to prevent indecency, and its consequences, but also Idolatry; as the Priestesses of Mars used to worship him in Man’s Apparel, and the Priests of Venus used to worship her in woman’s apparel : the word, © abomination,” Bdrrvyue, has seemed to favour this Idea*.

I said, 4 Div. Leg. 8 vo. Vol. 4. p. 197, 316, 366.

More instances may be seen in Stillingfleet’s Origines Sacre. B. ii. Ch. 7. at the end.

78 BOOK IV. ART, VII: SECT. XIV.

I said, that our Saviour had declared the Mosaic Law of Divorces to be suited to the Jews; let us now see the particular reason of it; the hardness of their & hearts. Poets and Historians have de- {cribed the Jews as rancorous and malevolent.— Since the time of Christ, they have been often per- secuted; and hatred easily becomes mutual: But 7 the time of Christ, perhaps spiritual pride might have arisen from their separation from the rest of the world; from the leverities seemingly authorized in {ome of their predecessors to the enemies of their Religion. Any kind of malevolence or rancour would make them treat the weaker sex ungene- rously, and in an harsh manner, inconsistent with the Christian principle of © giving honour unto the Wife, as unto the weaker Vessel“.“

8 ©. “me

f End of Se. xtr. | —

Bp. Warburton aseribes the whole ceremonial Law of the Jews to the Hardness of their Hearts. Div. Leg. Vol. 3. 8vo.

[…]

In 1794, I think, Mr. Cumberland brought on to the Stage a Comedy called the Few, in which old Sheva is represented as benevolent and grateful. To appearance indeed he is a miser ; and in fact lives very frugally ; but he does good in secret. —We can only wvi/t this may be founded in Nature, and ourselves en- deavour to promote Christian benevolence.

i In the time of Christ, the Jews might have got some male- volent sentiments from being subje&t to the Romans. Being obliged to submit to persons, whom we esteem inferior to ourselves in merit, generates hatred; especially if those persons have pre- tensions to superiority in some respects, and treat us with _ contempt.

K 1 Pet. ili. 7. What St. Peter recommends is precisely Mr. Hume’s sense of the word Gallantry; Essays 8vo. Vol. 1. p. 148, &c. Essay xiv, On the rise and progress of the Arts and Sciences, | |

What Mr. Hume says on the subje& may help to illustrate the difference between Judaism and Christianity, in point of civiliza- tion of manners. And therefore to shew how ill Judaism yore

• uit

—

/

/

The Jews were not allowed to take Trteref? for money, of Jews, but of rangers they were.— How far forbeating to take Interest was a duty of imperfect obligation, or indeterminate, like mercy to the poor, &c. may not be certain: the prohibi- tion to take Interest is not followed by any specific penalty, but is expressed like prohibitions to oppress the poor“: yet, as the Jews were under a special Providence, they might be sure, that zhey should be punished for hes; however men might sometimes evade human Laws.—This 1dea brings indeterminate offences amongst Jews, under the Theocracy, near to the determinate. We may therefore endeavour to assign the reasons of forbid- ding Vyury amongst the Jews, much as if that pro- hibition were perfectly determinate.

The Jews were to be a separate Nation; that Nation was to be divided into ae tribes; each tribe into separate families, and each family was to have its portion of Land, which should be culti- vated by that family, and descend from generation to generation: this was the ordinary state of things: the only proper bu/iness of Jews, as such, was, to support and transmit a Religion; gain was not their business; and all arguments in favour of Interest, limited or unlimited, turn upon the right, which a man has to improve his property. Their business was, to keep the Jewish polity inviolate, till the coming of the Messiah. But though, 1n this ordi- nary course, they needed not either to lend nor borrow; yet misfortunes might sometimes happen :

if

suit the present times. I could almost paint to myself a peevish Jew taking a rancorous disgust against his wife, on account of some unavoidable infirmity, and ulag her so, as to make separa - tion the least evil on the whole.

Lev. xxv. 36, &c. - Deut. xxiii. 19, 20.

m Lev. xv. 7. | |

80 BOOK IV. xv.

if they were of a /ighter fort, Brother must help Brother, mutually, gratuitously, ignorant whole turn it must be next to suffer. But, if Calamity was weighty, a family might part with its real pro- perty, in the way of mortgage or sale; only for a time; it must return at the Jubilee, every fiftieth year at the farthest”. Such a scheme seems best reserved by allowing no Interest, no Usury.— hy then allow Jews to take Interest of Strangers? Here the reasons ceasing, natural /iberty revived. But, would not this liberty z/ez7le Jews ? scarcely : they would have but Jide to lend; being not in the habit of lending, they would be very fearful; then their Land at home would always be the great tie: what they lent to strangers would be much more to residents than absentees; and would leave them {till Jews, both in religion and politics. — When indeed their circumstances came to be very much altered, by their subjection to the Romans, by the destruction of Jerusalem, &c. they would have to judge of the grounds of their Laws, and see how far they might innocently depart from the strictness of them.

xv. The reasoning commonly used does not satisfy the Jews, with regard to the abolition of their ceremonial Law.— Why did not Moses tell us plainly ? say they. When he uses such expres-

sions

n See Reland’s Sacred Antiquities, Part 4. Chap. 11. of Fubilees.

o It has been a notion, that taking Interest for money was im- moral : but such notion does not seem well grounded. It must be always wrong to oppre/5 the needy ; but oppression is a vice of the indeterminate sort. —Even in the eus, Usury was allowed to Strangers, that is, to men, as mere men: this could not have been, if it was radically immoral. Grotius supported the opi- mon, that Usury was wrong (de jure, &c. 2. 12. 20.) ; but Barbeyrac’s Note shews, that he did not continue always of that opinion, 8

BOOK iv. ART. vII. szer. xv. 81

sions as a Statute for ever, a perpetual Statute, did he mean to deceive? We answer, popular, natural language will always deceive if taken too literally; but where is the fault? not in him who uses the expressions, but in him who interprets them aß he interprets no others. But let us look at a] few particulars, in which expressions occur, that are not taken literally by the Jews: from these, their unfairness will appear, in taking others literally. The children of David * were to, sit upon his throne for evermore; that eternity has been long con- cluded. The children of strangers, after a price was paid for them, were to be Bond-men*, or slaves, « for ever:” they could not live for ever, and any one of them might be manumitted.— “ O King, live * for ever!” might express loyalty and respect, but could never prevent mortality.-T Twelve Stones were to be a memorial for ever of the dividing of the river Jordan when the Ark passed.

The Prophet speaks of […] mountains ;” and these might continue longer than the twelve stones ; yet © the everlasting mountains were scat- tered ;””— nay, Heaven and Earth shall pals away.”— As to a perpetual Statute, or“ a Statute for ever,” it is literally a thing impossible, because the power that enacts can always repeal. Darius made a decree about Daniel; it was immutable; —

In Lev. xxiii. 14. 21.31.41, 4 Palm exxxii. 12, r Lev. xxv. 46. Dan. ii. 4. © Joshuaiv. 7. u Hab. 1il. 6.

• Matt. xxiv. 36. | 1

Y See Exodus xxix. 9. The first Article of the Treaty in 1785, between the Emperor and the Dutch, agreed upon an eternal friendship between them. And our Law about the Church of England decrees, that it shall be safe <* for ever.“

Sherlock on Tests. Oxf. 1790. Pan. vi. 15.

VOL. 111. F

82 BOOK iv.

in fact, it lasted one night. From these instances, we may see the real meaning of the expressions in question ; ** for ever,” in popular language, denotes an unlimited futurity, according to the circum- stances of the case: “ bond-men for ever,” are bond-men for an unlimited time“: the fores were to be a memorial, not for five or ten years, but for as long a time as such a memorial would naturally last. A Law is perpetual*, when it is for no certain term, when those, who are to obey it, are to see no time when it will be repealed.

The Jews are against the repeal of their Law, because it is the dictate of infinite © wisdom. Yet a Being infinitely wise may himself repeal, in one situation of things, what was made for another“. To take a Son from his schoolmaster, 1s as much a mark of wisdom, when the Son comes to maturity, as it once was to place him * under Tutors and Governors*®.”

_ xv1. Our Application in the present article will be short ;—if we consider in what sense any one may now assent to it, we shall do it merely in the way of recapitulation. |

Though some through zeal, others through

want of discernment, have held, that the Old and

New

d Spirit of Laws, B. 3. Chap. 10.— March 1795, The Taxes Just now imposed have been argued upon as perpetual taxes: that 1s, they are not temporary ; or for any time, whose limits are known.

© This Stillingfleet mentions as the argument of Aravanel, Orig. Sacrz : and Luther, in his Essay on reading Moses, Vol, 3, of his Works; beginning. | |

4 See before, about Divorces, end of Sect. x11,

e Gal, iii. 24. and Gal. iv. 2. N

BOOK IV. ART. vI I. SECT. xvt. 83

New Testament. are contrary to each other, I be- lieve them to differ only as different parts of the same plan. If I review them together, I can see Christianity opening gradually, ever since the Crea- tion. Whether, the Jewish People at large were able to discern this, need not be settled; yet, from what I read in both old and new scriptures, I can by no means allow, that Abraham, Moses, and the Prophets confined their views and expeCtations to this Life. When I say, that the Old Testament is part of the same plan with the new, I do not mean, that the Laws of the former are to be obeyed indiscriminately, like those of the latter. The cere- monial and civil Laws of Moses were always in- tended to be temporary; though the moral Law must for ever be of force ; except we may reckon as part of the moral Law some circumstances of the Laws of the Decalogue, which seem distinct from their moral essence. These may be varied, if it be done by authority, for the benefit of any part of mankind, by whom they may happen to be car- ried into execution.” |

As to mutual toncessions of those, who contend about this Article, we need only recommend it to Jews, Antinomians, and others, to consider what has been advanced, and not to retain or reject, with- out a calm consideration of all circumstances.

Improvements must be of the same nature here with those mentioned under the preceding Article; they must still be improvements in studying the Scriptures. So we need not dwell upon them.

I will therefore conclude with observing what a grand and interesting employment for the mind this Article affords. Can any thing be more truly called so, than the contemplation of all the Dispensations of the Almighty, with their connexion, dads. difference, according to the different *

, F 2 Tor

ff

84 BOOK iv. ART. vii. SECT. XVI.

for which they were intended? What wonder, if low and illiterate sects should have run into various errors on a subject, which requires such extensive knowledge and sound judgement? What wonder, if the learned themselves have not been able in all things to coincide?

Notes

• a Append. to B. 1. Sect. 111. b 1b. Sect. xix. © Mosheim, Cent. 12. Part 2. Chap. 5. Sect. 4. 4 Augustin’s Works, Tom. 8 and q. p. 82.
• Vide Cap. 9g. Sect. 3. Cap. 10. Sect. 1, 7. Magnitudi- nem gratiæ Christi extollere vult.” Cap. 9. Sect. 3. — (all in Lib. 2.) The Servetiani are one set of Christians, against whom our Articles are said to have been compiled. See Doctrina, &c. Ecclesiæ Angl. Lond. 1617.
• Mosheim, Cent. 16. 1. 3. 11: Maclaine’s Note, referring to Burnet’s History of the Reformation, and Hume. — See Bur- net’s History of the Reformation, Vol. 1. p. 38.—Heary the v111th’s scruples about marrying his Brother Arthur’s Widow.
• On the roth Chapter of the Part of the Misna called San- hedrin. Fundamentarn nonum, p. 175, Pocock. In Suren- husius, at the end of Sanhedrin, But sce Bishop Chandler, p- 270, wa the older Jews.
• See Bingham, B. 20. Ch. 3. but see also Lardner’s Works, Vol. 4, p. 343, aud a little before. Tertullian 1s indignant about Christians keeping the Sabbath i. e. Saturday. Bing- ham’s Authorities are none of them very early, though he might think the Con/titutions were so.
• See Warb. Alliance, p. 46; or B. 1. Chap. 1v. fifthly.
• In Preface to Vol. 3, fol. 2, p 2; see also fol. 7, p.2; (only every other page, or only every leaf is numbered in Lu- ther’s Works ) |
• Mosheim, Cent. 16. Sect. 3. Part 2. Chap. 1. Se&. 26. Conc. Trent. Sess. 6, Canon 19. *. P. | Vol 4 p. 451. D 4
• Div. Leg. 8 vo. p. 470, Vol. 4; or Book 6. 6. 3.
• See Daubuz with Lancaster; Symbolical Dictionary, p. 64. Heaven. Hurd, p. 195, Sermon 6, where the texts about
• Livre d’ E de Reims, — The Necessary Doctrine. &c. distinguishes between Images, and paying them divine honors. It often goes between Popery and Protestantism.
• These bondmen for an unlimited time, who are foreigners grown poor, and unable to support themselves, are immediately (Lev. xxv. 46, 47, &c.) opposed to bondmen for a limited time: that is, to the children of Israelites, if reduced to poverty and bought by Sojourners; these last might be redeemed ; and must regain their Liberty at the next Jubilee.