restres, et que les Juifs n'adoroient Dieu que pour les biens charnels."* And what more hath been said or done by the author of the DIVINE LEGATION? Indeed, a great deal more. He hath shown, "that the absence or omission of a future state of rewards and punishments in the Mosaic religion is a certain proof that its original was from God." Forgive him this wrong, my reverend brethren!

SECT. V.

Bur though it appear that a future state of rewards and punishments made no part of the Mosaic dispensation, yet the LAW had certainly a SPIRITUAL meaning, to be understood when the fulness of time should come: and hence it received the nature, and afforded the efficacy, of PROPHECY. In the interim, the MYSTERY OF THE GOSPEL was occasionally revealed by God to his chosen servants, the fathers and leaders of the Jewish nation; and the dawning of it was gradually opened by the prophets, to the people.

And which is exactly agreeable to what our excellent church in its SEVENTH ARTICLE of religion teacheth concerning this matter.

ARTICLE VII. "The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament, everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only mediator between God and man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old fathers did look only for transitory promises."

-The Old Testament is not contrary to the New, is a proposition directed against the Manichean error, to which the opinions of some sectaries of these later times seemed to approach. The Manicheans fancied there was a good and an evil principle; that the old dispensation was under the evil, and that the new was the work of the good. Now it hath been proved, that the Old Testament is so far from being contrary to the New, that it was the foundation, rudiments, and preparation for it.

-For both in the Old and New Testament, everlasting life is offered to mankind by CHRIST, who is the only Mediator between God and man. That the church could not mean by these words, that everlasting life was offered to mankind by CHRIST in the Old Testament in the SAME MANNER in which it is offered by the New, is evident from these considerations:

1. The church, in the preceding words, only says, the Old Testament is NOT CONTRARY to the New; but did she mean that everlasting life was offered by both, in the same manner, she would certainly have said, The Old Testament is THE SAME with the New. This farther appears from the inference drawn from the proposition concerning everlasting life-WHEREFORE they are not to be heard, which feign that the old FATHERS did look only for transitory promises. But was this pretended

* Apologie de Port Royal. And see note L L, at the end of this book.

sense the true, then the inference had been, That ALL THE ISRAELITES were instructed to look for more than transitory promises.

2. The church could not mean, that everlasting life is offered in the Old and New Testament in the same manner, because we learn from St Austin, that this was one of the old Pelagian heresies, condemned by the catholics in the synod of Diospolis, --QUOD LEX SIC MITTAT AD REGNUM [CELORUM] QUEMADMODUM ET EVANGELIUM.*

What was meant therefore by the words both in the Old and New Testament, everlasting life is offered to mankind by CHRIST, was plainly this; "That the offer of everlasting life to mankind by CHRIST in the New Testament was SHADOWED OUT in the Old; the SPIRITUAL meaning of the law and the prophets referring to that life and immortality, which was brought to light by JESUS CHRIST."

3. But lastly; Whatever meaning the church had in these words, it cannot at all affect our proposition, that a future state was not taught by the law of Moses; because by the Old Testament is ever meant both the law, and the prophets. Now I hold that the prophets gave strong intimations, though in figurative language borrowed from the Jewish economy, of the everlasting life offered to mankind by JESUS CHRIST.

The concluding words of the article which relate to this matter say,Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the OLD FATHERS did look only for transitory promises; and so say I: because JESUS himself is to be heard, before all such: and he affirms the direct contrary, of the father of the faithful in particular. Your father Abraham, says he to the unbelieving Jews, rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.† A fact not only of the utmost certainty in itself, but of the highest importance to be rightly understood. That I may not therefore be suspected of prevarication, I choose this instance (the noblest that ever was given of the HARMONY between the Old and New Testament) to illustrate this consistent truth.

[I.] AND I persuade myself that the learned reader will be content to go along with me, while I take occasion, from these remarkable words of JESUS, to explain the history of the famous COMMAND TO ABRAHAM TO OFFER UP HIS SON; for to this history, I shall prove, the words refer; and by their aid I shall be enabled to justify a revolting circumstance in it, which has been long the stumblingblock of infidelity.

In the sense in which the history of the COMMAND hath been hitherto understood, the best apology for Abraham's behaviour (and it is hard we should be obliged, at this time of day, to make apologies for an action, which, we are told, had the greatest merit in the sight of God) seems to be this, that having had much intercourse with the God of heaven, whose revelations (not to say, his voice of nature) spoke him a good and just being, Abraham concluded that this command to sacrifice his son, conveyed to him like the rest, by the same strong and clear impression on the sensory, came also from the same GOD. How rational soever this † John viii. 56.

solution be, the deist, perhaps, would be apt to tell us it was little better than Electra's answer to Orestes, who, staggering in his purpose to kill his mother by the command of Apollo, says: But if, after all, this should be an evil demon, who, bent upon mischief, hath assumed the form of a god? She replies, What, an evil demon possess the sacred tripod! It is not to be supposed.*

But the idea hitherto conceived of this important history has subjected it even to a worse abuse than that of infidelity: fanatics, carnally as well as spiritually licentious, have employed it to countenance and support the most abominable of their doctrines and practices. Rimius in his Candid Narrative hath given us a strange passage from the writings of the Moravian Brethren, which the reader, from a note of his, will find transcribed here below.t

However, after saving and reserving to ourselves the benefit of all those arguments, which have been hitherto brought to support the history of the COMMAND; I beg leave to say, that the source of all the difficulty is the very wrong idea men have been taught to entertain of it, while it was considered as given for a TRIAL ONLY of Abraham's faith; and consequently as a revelation unsought by him, and unrelated to any of those before vouchsafed unto him: whereas, in truth, it was a revelation ARDENTLY DESIRED, had the CLOSEST CONNEXION with, and was, indeed, the COMPLETION OF ALL THE FOREGOING; which were all directed to one end; as the gradual view of the orderly parts of one entire dispensation required: consequently, the principal purpose of the COMMAND was not to try Abraham's faith, although its nature was such, that in the very giving of it, God did, indeed, tempt or try Abraham.‡

In plain terms, the action was enjoined as the conveyance of information to the actor, of something he had requested to know: this mode of information by signs instead of words being, as we have shown, of common practice in those early ages: and as the force of the following reasoning is founded on that ancient custom, I must request the reader carefully to review what hath been said in book iv. sect. 4, concerning the origin, progress, and various modes of personal converse; where it is seen, how the conveying information, and giving directions, to another, by signs and actions, instead of words, came to be of general practice in the first rude ages; and how, in compliance therewith, God was pleased frequently to converse with the holy patriarchs and prophets in that very manner.

* Ορ. ̓Αρ' αὔτ ̓ ἀλάστωρ εἶπ' ἀπεικασθείς θεῷ;

Ηλ. Ἱερὸν καθίζων τρίποδ ̓; Ἐγὼ μὲν οὐ δοκῶ. δοκῶ. - Eurip. Electra, ver. 979.

+"He," the Saviour, "can dispose of life and soul; he can make the economy of salvation, and change it every hour, that the hindermost be the foremost; he can make laws, and abrogate them; HE CAN MAKE THAT TO BE MORAL, WHICH IS AGAINST NATURE; the greatest virtue to be the most villanous action, and the most virtuous thoughts to be the most criminal: he can in a quarter of an hour, make ABRAHAM willing to kill his son, which however is the most abominable thought a man can have." - Count Zinzendorf's Serm. in Rinius, p. 53.

Gen. xxii. 1.

Laying down therefore what hath been said on this subject, in the place referred to, as a postulatum; I undertake to prove the following proposition:

I. THAT WHEN GOD SAYS TO ABRAHAM, TAKE NOW THY SON, THINE ONLY SON ISAAC, &c. * THE COMMAND IS MERELY AN INFORMATION BY ACTION, INSTEAD OF WORDS, OF THE GREAT SACRIFICE OF CHRIST FOR THE REDEMPTION OF MANKIND, GIVEN AT THE EARNEST REQUEST OF ABRAHAM, WHO LONGED IMPATIENTLY TO SEE CHRIST'S DAY; and is, in its nature, exactly the same as those informations to the prophets, where, to this man, God says: Make thee bonds and yokes, and put them on thy neck; † to another-Go take unto thee a wife of whoredoms, ‡ &c.; and to a third-Prepare thee stuff for removing, § &c. that is, AN INFORMATION OF HIS PURPOSE BY ACTION INSTEAD OF WORDS; in the first case, foretelling the conquests of Nebuchadnezzar over Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, and Sidon; in the second, declaring his abhorrence of the idolatries of the house of Israel; and in the third, the approaching captivity of Zedekiah.

The foundation of my thesis I lay in that scripture of St John, where JESUS says to the unbelieving Jews, YOUR FATHER ABRAHAM REJOICED TO SEE MY DAY; AND HE SAW IT, AND WAS GLAD.||

1. If we consider Abraham's personal character, together with the choice made of him for head and origin of that people which GOD would separate and make holy to himself; from whence was to arise the REDEEMER of mankind, the ultimate end of that separation; we cannot but conclude it probable, that the knowledge of this Redeemer would be revealed to him. "Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do?" says God, in a matter that much less concerned the father of the faithful. And here, in the words of JESUS, we have this probable truth arising from the nature of the thing, made certain and put out of all reasonable question-Abraham rejoiced, says JESUS, to see my DAY,** τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ἐμήν. Now when the figurative word day is used, not to express in general the period of any one's existence, but to denote his peculiar office and employment, it must needs signify that very circumstance in his life, which is characteristic of such office and employment. But JESUS is here speaking of his peculiar office and employment, as appears from the occasion of the debate, which was his saying, If any man keep my commandments, he shall never taste of death, intimating thereby the virtue of his office of Redeemer. Therefore, by the word DAY must needs be meant that characteristic circumstance of his life; but that circumstance was the laying down his life for the redemption of mankind. Consequently, by the word DAY is meant the great sacrifice of CHRIST.†† Hence we may discover the real or affected ignorance of the Socinian comment upon this place; which would have day only to signify in general the life of CHRIST, or the period of his abode here on earth.

To reconcile the learned reader to the propriety and elegance as well as to the truth of this sense of the word, day, he may observe, that as Jesus entitles his great work, in his state of humiliation, the redemption of mankind, by the name of HIS DAY; so is he pleased to give the same appellation to his other great work, in his triumphant state, the judgment of mankind. "For as the lightning," says he, "that lightneth out of the one part under heaven, so shall also the Son of man be in HIS DAY."* But this figure is indeed as usual in scripture as it is natural in itself. Thus that signal catastrophe in the fortunes of the Jewish people, both temporal and spiritual, their restoration, is called their DAY" Then shall the children of Judah," says God by the prophet Hosea, "and the children of Israel, be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be THE DAY of Israel." †

2. But not only the matter, but the manner, likewise of this great revelation, is delivered in the text-Abraham rejoiced to SEE my day: and he SAW it, and was glad. ἵνα ΙΔΗι τὴν ἡμέραν τὴν ἐμὴν· καὶ ΕΙΔΕ. -This evidently shows the revelation to have been made, not by rela tion in words, but by REPRESENTATION in action. The verb εἴδω is frequently used in the New Testament, in its proper signification, to see sensibly. But whether used literally or figuratively, it always denotes a full intuition. That the expression was as strong in the Syrian language used by JESUS, as here in the Greek of his historian, appears from the reply the Jews made to him "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou SEEN Abraham?" ‡ Plainly intimating that they understood the assertion of Abraham seeing Christ's day to be a real beholding him in person. We must conclude therefore, from the words of the text, that the redemption of mankind was not only revealed to Abraham, but was revealed likewise by representation. A late writer, extremely well skilled in the style of scripture, was so sensible of the force of JESUS'S words, that, though he had no suspicion they related to any part of Abraham's recorded history, yet he saw plainly they implied an information by representation" Thus also Abraham," says he, "saw the day of CHRIST, and was glad. But this must be in a typical or prophetical vision." §-The excellent Dr Scott is of the same opinion. He supposes "the words refer to some peculiar discoveries, which the Spirit of God might make to Abraham, for his own private consolation, though not recorded in scripture." ||

So far, then, is clear, that Abraham had indeed this revelation. The next question will be, whether we can reasonably expect to find it in the history of his life, recorded in the Old Testament? And that we may find it here, both the words of JESUS, and the nature of the thing, assure us."