always the will of the Lord that the minds of his people should be directed, and their hearts elevated, towards the celestial inheritance; yet in order that they might be the better encouraged to hope for it, he anciently exhibited it for their contemplation and partial enjoyment under the figures of terrestrial blessings. Now having by the Gospel more clearly and explicitly revealed the grace of the future life, he leaves the inferior mode of instruction which he used with the Israelites, and directs our minds to the immediate contemplation of it. Those who overlook this design of God, suppose that the ancients ascended no higher than the corporeal blessings which were promised to them. They so frequently hear the land of Canaan mentioned as the eminent, and indeed the only, reward for the observers of the Divine law. They hear that God threatens the transgressors of this law with nothing more severe than being expelled from the possession of that country, and dispersed into foreign lands. They see this to be nearly the whole substance of all the blessings and of all the curses pronounced by Moses. Hence they confidently conclude, that the Jews were separated from other nations, not for their own sakes, but for ours, that the Christian Church might have an image, in whose external form they could discern examples of spiritual things. But since the Scripture frequently shews, that God himself appointed the terrestrial advantages with which he favoured them for the express purpose of leading them to the hope of celestial blessings; it argued extreme inexperience, not to say stupidity, not to consider such a dispensation. The point of controversy between us and these persons, is this: they maintain that the possession of the land of Canaan was accounted by the Israelites their supreme and ultimate blessedness, but that to us since the revelation of Christ it is a figure of the heavenly inheritance. We on the contrary contend, that in the earthly possession which they enjoyed they contemplated, as in a mirror, the future inheritance which they believed to be prepared for them in heaven.

II. This will more fully appear from the similitude, which Paul has used in his Epistle to the Galatians. (2) He compares

the Jewish nation to a young heir, who being yet incapable of governing himself, follows the dictates of a tutor or governor, to whose charge he has been committed. His application of this similitude chiefly to the ceremonies, is no objection against the propriety of its application to our present purpose. The same inheritance was destined for them as for us; but they were not of a sufficient age to be capable of entering on the possession and management of it. The Church among them was the same as among us; but it was yet in a state of childhood. Therefore the Lord kept them under this tuition, that he might give them the spiritual promises, not open and unconcealed, but veiled under terrestrial figures. Therefore when he admitted Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, with their posterity, to the hope of immortality, he promised them the land of Canaan as their inheritance: not that their hopes might terminate in that land, but that in the prospect of it they might exercise and confirm themselves in the hope of that true inheritance which was not yet visible. And that they might not be deceived, a superior promise was given them, which proved that country not to be the highest blessing which God would bestow. Thus Abraham is not permitted to grow indolent after having received a promise of the land, but a greater promise elevates his mind to the Lord. For he hears him saying, "Abram, I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward." (a) Here we see that the Lord proposes himself to Abraham as his ultimate reward, that he may not seek an uncertain and transitory one in the elements of this world, but may consider that which can never fade away. God afterwards annexes a promise of the land, merely as a symbol of his benevolence, and a type of the heavenly inheritance. And that this was the opinion of the saints, is plain from their own language. Thus David rises from temporary blessings to that consummate and ultimate felicity. "My soul longeth, yea, even fainteth for the courts of the Lord." (b) "God is my portion for ever." (c) Again: "The Lord is the portion of mine inheritance and of my cup: thou maintainest my lot." (d) Again: "I cried unto thee, O Lord: I said, Thou art my refuge

and my portion in the land of the living." (e) Persons who venture to express themselves thus, certainly profess that in their hopes they rise above the world and all present blessings. Nevertheless the prophets frequently describe this blessedness of the future world under the type which the Lord had given them. In this sense we must understand the following passages: "The righteous shall inherit the land:" (f) "But the wicked shall be cut off from the earth:" (g) And various predictions of Isaiah, which foretel the future prosperity of Jerusalem, and the abundance that will be enjoyed in Zion. We see that all these things are inapplicable to the land of our pilgrimage, or to the earthly Jerusalem, but that they belong to the true country of the faithful and to that celestial city, where "the Lord commanded the blessing, even life for evermore." (h)

III. This is the reason why the saints, under the Old Testament, are represented as holding this mortal life with its blessings in higher estimation than becomes us now. For although they well knew that they ought not to rest in it as the end of their course; yet when they recollected what characters of his grace the Lord had impressed on it, in order to instruct them in a manner suitable to their tender state, they felt a greater degree of pleasure in it than if they had considered it merely in itself. But as the Lord, in declaring his benevolence to the faithful by present blessings, gave them, under these types and symbols, a figurative exhibition of spiritual felicity; so on the other hand in corporeal punishments he exemplified his judgment against the reprobate. Therefore as the favours of God were more conspicuous in earthly things, so also were his punishments. Injudicious persons, not considering this analogy and harmony (so to speak) between the punishments and rewards, wonder at so great a variety in God, that in ancient times he was ready to avenge all the transgressions of men by the immediate infliction of severe and dreadful punishments, but now, as if he had laid aside his ancient wrath, punishes with far less severity and frequency; and on this account they almost adopt the notion of the Manicheans, that the God of the Old Testament is a different being from the God of the

(e) Psalm cxlii. 5.
(g) Prov. ii. 22.

(ƒ) Psalm xxxvii. 29.
(h) Psalm cxxxiii. 3.

New. But we shall easily get rid of such difficulties, if we direct our attention to that dispensation of God, which I have observed; namely, that during that period, in which he gave the Israelites his covenant involved in some degree of obscurity, he intended to signify and prefigure the grace of future and eternal felicity by terrestrial blessings, and the grievousness of spiritual death by corporeal punishments.

IV. Another difference between the Old Testament and the New consists in figures, because the former, in the absence of the truth, displayed merely an image and shadow instead of the body: but the latter exhibits the present truth of the substantial body. (i) And this is generally mentioned wherever the New Testament is opposed to the Old, but is treated more at large in the Epistle to the Hebrews than in any other place. (k) The apostle is there disputing against those who supposed that the observance of the Mosaic law could not be abolished, without being followed by the total ruin of religion. To refute this error, he adduces the prediction of the prophet concerning the priesthood of Christ; (1) for since he has an eternal priesthood committed to him, we may argue the certain abolition of that priesthood in which new priests daily succeeded each other. (m) But he proves the superiority of the appointment of this new Priest, because it is confirmed with an oath.(n) He afterwards adds that this transfer of the priesthood implies also a change of the covenant. (0) And he proves that this change was necessary, because such was the imbecility of the law, that it could bring nothing to perfection. (p) Then he proceeds to state the nature of this imbecility; namely, that the law prescribed external righteousnesses consisting in carnal ordinances, which could not make the observers of them "perfect as pertaining to the conscience," that by animal victims it could neither expiate sins nor procure true holiness. (q) He concludes therefore, that it contained "a shadow of good things to come, but not the very image of the things;" (r) and that consequently it had no other office, but to serve as an intro

duction to "a better hope" (s) which is exhibited in the gospel. Here we have to inquire in what respect the Legal covenant is compared with the Evangelical, the ministry of Christ with the ministry of Moses. For if the comparison related to the substance of the promises, there would be a great discordance between the two testaments; but as the state of the question leads us to a different point, we must attend to the scope of the apostle, in order to discover the truth. Let us then bring forward the covenant, which God hath once made, which is eternal, and never to be abolished. The accomplishment, whence it derives its establishment and satisfaction, is Christ. While such a confirmation was waited for, the Lord by Moses prescribed ceremonies, to serve as solemn symbols of the confirmation. It came to be a subject of contention, whether the ceremonies ordained in the law ought to cease and give place to Christ. Now though these ceremonies were only accidents or concomitants of the covenant, yet being the instruments of its administration, they bear the name of the covenant; as it is common to give to other sacraments the names of the things they represent. In a word, therefore, what is here called the Old Testament, is a solemn method of confirming the covenant, consisting of ceremonies and sacrifices. Since it contains nothing perfect, if we proceed no further; the apostle contends that it ought to be repealed and abrogated, in order to make way for Christ, the Surety and Mediator of a better testament, (t) by whom eternal sanctification has been at once procured for the elect, and those transgressions obliterated, which remained under the law. Or if you prefer it, take the following statement of it; that the Old Testament of the Lord was that which was delivered to the Jews, involved in a shadowy and inefficacious observance of ceremonies, and that it was therefore temporary, because it remained as it were in suspense, till it was supported by a firm and substantial confirmation; but that it was made new and eternal, when it was consecrated and established by the blood of Christ. Whence Christ calls the cup which he gives to his disciples in

the supper, "the cup of the New Testament in his blood;" (v)

(+) Heb. vii. 19.

(t) Heb. vii. 22.

(v) Matt. xxvi. 28.