also they might discern of the work itself, as to stifle unto eternity every thought of engaging in it. Besides, they knew the will of God, by what they saw come to pass. They saw his justice and holiness glorified in the evils which he had brought upon the world. That he would not for ever satisfy himself in that glory, they knew not. And what was man unto them, that they should busy themselves to retrieve him from that condition whereinto he had cast himself by sin, while God was glorified therein, in conformity unto whose will, their happiness and perfection doth consist? As remote as men are from thoughts of recovering fallen angels, so far were they from contriving the recovery of man.

But it may be said, that God himself might design them to work out the salvation and deliverance inquired after, as was before supposed. But this makes God, and not them, to be the Saviour, and them only the instruments in the accomplishment of his work. Neither yet hath he done so, nor were they meet so to be employed. Whatever is purely penal in the misery of man, is an effect of the righteous judgment of God. This, as we have manifested, could be no otherwise diverted from him, but by some person enduring it in his stead. And two things are required in him, or them, that should so endure it. 1st, That they were not themselves obnoxious unto it, either personally, or upon the first common account. If they are so, they must look to their own concerns in the first place. 2dly, That they were such as that the benefit of their enduring that penalty might, according to the rules of justice, redound unto them for whom, and in whose stead, they endured it, otherwise they would suffer in vain. Now, although the angels might answer the first of these, in their personal immunity from obnoxiousness unto the curse, yet the latter they were unsuited for. They had no relation unto mankind, but only that they were the workmanship of the same Creator. But this is not suffi cient to warrant such a substitution. Had angels been to be delivered, their redemption must have been wrought in the angelical nature, as the apostle declares, Heb. ii. 16. But what justice is it, that man should sin, and angels suffer? Or from whence should it arise, that from their suffering it should be righteous that man should go free? By what notions of God could we have been instructed in the wisdom and righteousness of such a proceeding? Add hereunto, that this God hath not done, and therefore we may safely conclude that it became him not so to do.

§ 18. But what need all this inquiry? The Jews, with whom we principally have to do in this matter, plead constantly that God hath appointed unto men, at least unto themselves, a way and means of deliverance out of this condition. And this is by

the observation of Moses' law. By this they say, they are jus tified in the sight of God, and have deliverance from all wrath due unto sin. This they trusted in of old, Rom. ix. 32.: this they continue to make their refuge at this day. Spiritualis liberatio solummodo dependet ab observatione legis quam Deus in monte Sinai promulgavit.— Spiritual deliverance dependeth solely on the observation of the law which God promulgated on Mount Sinai,' saith the author of the Answers unto certain Questions proposed to the Jews, Quest. 5. published by Brenius, who in his reply hath betrayed unto them the most important doctrines of the Christian religion. But this is their persuasion: The giving of this law unto them, they suppose to have freed them utterly from every thing in the fallen condition before described, so far as they will acknowledge it to concerni any of the posterity of Adam. And whereas they cannot deny but that they sometimes sin against the moral precepts of this law, and so stand in need of help against their helper, they fix in this case upon a double relief. The first is of their own personal repentance, and the other the sacrifices that are appointed in the law.

But whereas they now are, and have been for many generations, deprived of the privilege, as they esteem it, of offering sacrifices according to the law, they hope that their own repentance, with their death, respecting which they pray that it may be expiatory, will be sufficient to obtain for them the forgiveness of sin. Only they say, that this might better and more easily be effected, if they might enjoy the benefit of sacrifices. So saith the fore-mentioned Jew, whose discourse is published by Brenius. Quamvis jam nulla sint sacrificia, quæ media erant ad tanto facilius impetrandam remissionem peccatorum, eadem tamen per pænitentiam et resipiscentiam impetratur. And again, Hodie victimas offerre non possumus destituti mediis ad hoc necessariis, que quando obtinebimus, tum remissio illa tanto fecilior reddetur. Respon. ad Quæst. Septim. If they cannot obtain the use of sacrifices, yet the matter may be effected by their repentance; only it were much easier to do it by sacrifices. And they seem to long for them principally on this account, that by them they may free themselves from somewhat of discipline and penance, which now their consciences enforce upon them. But this, as all other articles of their creed, which are properly Judaical, is feigned by them to suit their present condition and interest. For where do they find that their sacrifices, especially that which they most trust in, namely that on the feast of expiation, Lev. xvi. was ever designed for this end, to enable them the more easily to obtain the remission of sins by another means which they use? For it is said directly, that the sacrifice on that day did expiate their sin, and make atonement for it, that

they might not die; and not that it did help them in procuring pardon another way. But this is now taken from them, and what shall they do? Why rather than they will look or come to him who was represented in that sacrifice, and on whose account alone it had all its efficacy, they will find out a new way of doing that which their sacrifices were appointed unto; and this they must do, or openly acknowledge that they all perish eternally. I shall not insist long on the casting down of this imagination, all the foundations of it being long ago demolished by our apostle in his Epistles, especially those to the Romans, Galatians, and to the Hebrews themselves. And this he hath not done merely by a new revelation of the mind and will of God, but upon the principles, and by the testimonies of the Old Testament itself, as will afterwards more fully appear. Only because it is here set up in competition with that blessed and all-sufficient remedy against sin and the curse, which God indeed hath provided, I shall briefly remove it out of our way, and that by manifesting that it is neither in itself suited unto that end, nor was ever of God designed thereunto.

§ 19. That all mankind were cast into the condition which we have described, by and upon the sin of Adam, we have before sufficiently confirmed. Other just reason, or occasion of it, no man can assign. It hath been also evinced, that God would, and consequently did, prepare a remedy for them, or a way of deliverance to be proposed unto them. If this were only the law of Moses, and the observance thereof, as the Jews pretend, I desire to know what became of them, what was their estate and condition, who lived and died before the giving of that law? Not only the patriarchs before the flood, who some of them had this testimony, that they pleased God, and one of whom was taken alive into heaven, but Abraham also himself, who received the promises, must on this supposition be excluded from a participation in the deliverance inquired after. For they observed not the law of Moses. What they dream about the making of their law before the foundation of the world, and the study of God therein, and that night and day, by day in the written law, and by night in the oral cabal, is not to be mentioned, where matters of importance unto the souls of men are under consideration.

But yet I may add by the way, that neither this, nor the like monstrous figments are invented or broached by them, without some especial design. In the eighth chapter of the Proverbs, there is mention of the wisdom of God, and such a description given of it, as allows not an essential property of his nature to be thereby intended. This is there said to be with God before the foundation of the world, his delight and companion. Whence it appears, that nothing but the eternal word, wisdom,

and Son of God can possibly be intended thereby. To avoid this testimony given unto his eternal subsistence, the Jews first invented this fable, that the law was created before the world, and that the wisdom of it was that which God conversed with, and delighted in. And I have often wondered at the remark of a learned Christian annotator upon the place: Hæc, saith he, de ea sapientia quæ in lege apparet exponunt Hebræi; et sane ei, si non soli, at præcipue hæc attributa conveniunt, contrary to the faith of the church in all ages. It is true, that in writing on ver. 22. and those that follow, he affirms that they may be expounded by the words of Philo de Coloniis. ὁ λογος ὁ πρεσβυτερος των γενεσιν ειληφότων, & καθαπερ οιακος ενειλημένος ὁ των όλων κυβερνητης πηδαλιουχει τα συμπανία, και ότε εκοσμοπλαστεί χρησάμενος οργανω τέτω προς την ανυπαίτιον των αποτελεμένων συστασιν. But whether this Platonical declaration of the nature and work of the word of God, employed by him as an instrument in the making and government of the world, would have been accepted in the primitive church, when this place was vexed by the Arians, and studiously vindicated by the orthodox fathers, I much question. But to return, if the law, and the observance of it, be the only remedy provided of God against the sin and misery of man, the only means of reconciliation with him, all that died before the giving of it must perish, and that eternally. But the contrary appears from this very consideration, and is undeniably proved by our apostle in the instance of Abraham, Gal. iii. 17. For he received the promise, and was taken into covenant with God four hundred and thirty years before the giving of the law. And that covenant conveyed unto him the love and favour of God, with deliverance from sin and the curse, as themselves will not deny.

There was therefore a remedy in this case provided long before the giving of the law, on Mount Sinai; and therefore the law was not given unto that purpose, but for other ends at large declared by our apostle. Either then they must grant that all the patriarchs, and he amongst the rest of whom they boast, perished eternally; or else, that there was a means of deliverance provided before the giving of the law, and consequently that the law was not given for that end. The first they will not do, nor can, without an absolute renunciation of their own sacred writings, wherein none have obtained a larger testimony that they pleased God than they. The latter therefore followeth undeniably. If they shall say they had a way of deliverance, but God provided another afterwards, as this would be spoken without warrant or authority from the Scripture, so I desire to know both what that way was, and why it was rejected. Of God's appointment it was, and effectual it was unte

them that embraced it; and why it should be laid aside, who can declare?

§ 20. Again, as was before observed, there are two parts of the law; the moral precepts of it, and the instituted worship appointed in it. Unto this latter part do the sacrifices of it belong. But neither of these are sufficient unto the end proposed, nor jointly can they attain it. Two things are evidently necessary from what hath been discoursed unto the deliverance inquired after. First, That man be reconciled unto God, by the removal of the curse, and the wrath due unto him for his apostasy. Secondly, That his nature be freed from that principle of sin and enmity against God, the evil figment, that it is tainted with, yea, with which it is possessed. And neither of these can be effected by the law, or either part of it. For,

First, The moral precepts of it are the same with those that were written in the heart of man by nature, or the law of his creation, which he transgressed in his first rebellion. And he must be delivered from that guilt, before any new obedience can be accepted of him. His old debt must be satisfied for, before he can treat for a new reward, which inseparably follows all acceptable obedience. But this the precepts of the law take no notice of, nor do they direct unto any way for removing sin; only supposing the doing of it by some other means, it requires act obedience in them that come to God thereby. Hence our apostle concludes, that it could not give life, but was weak and insufficient in itself unto any such purpose.

Besides, secondly, it could not absolutely preserve men in its own observation; for it required that obedience, which never any sinner did or could in all things perform, as the Scriptures of the Old Testament abundantly manifest. For they tell us, "there is no man that sinneth not," 1 Kings viii. 46. 2 Chron, vi. 36. That, if the Lord" should mark iniquity, no man could stand," Psal. cxxx. 3. And that, "if he enter into judgment (according to the law), no man living can be justified in his sight," Psal. cxliii. 2. To this purpose, see the excellent discourse, and invincible reasonings of our apostle, Rom. iii. iv. This the holy men of old confessed, to this the Scripture bears testimony, and this experience confirms, seeing every sin and transgression of that law was put under a curse, Deut, xxvii. 26. Where then, there is no man that sinneth not, and every sin is put under the curse, the law, in the preceptive part of it, can be no means of delivery from the one or other, but is rather a certain means of increasing and aggravating of them both. Neither is there any testimony given concerning any one under the Old Testament, that he was any other way justified before God but by faith and the pardon of sins, which are not of the works of the law. See Gen. xv. 6, Psal. xxxii. 1, 2.