XXII. 4. If we grant, that something is here promised, which, was to be performed to the elect Israelites in the time of the Messiah; yet this by no means proves, that this benefit was peculiar to that time, and was not bestowed on their ancestors before. I shall not go far to shew the weakness of that consequence. In ver. 8. God promised conversion to the Israelites of that time, that they might hearken to the voice of Jehovah, and do all his commandments. Yet such a conversion is no peculiar benefit of the New Testament; because in almost the same words, the Lord ascribes it to the Jews in the Babylonish captivity, ver. 2. Therefore we conclude, that they by no means speak according to scripture, who deny, that circumcision of the heart, in whatever sense performed, had place under the Old Testament.

XXIII. Thirdly, In the same base manner, they make the writing the law on the heart, a blessing peculiar to the New Testament: because Heb. viii. 10. it is said from Jer. xxxi. 34. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts; that is, says our author, in Jer. xxxi. § 61. I will cause them to receive my law, delight therein, and not forget it. If these words be taken as they lie, it follows that the ancient believers, who lived before the times of the New Testament, did not receive the law of God, nor delight in it, but forgot it.. But that these things are most eminently false, appears from the example of David alone; who professes that he received the law, when he says, Psal. cxix. 11. Thy word have I hid in my heart and adds ver. 16. I will delight myself in thy statutes, I will not forget thy word. How then is this a blessing peculiar to the New Testament, in which David claims an interest in so many words?

XXIV. But there is something else implied. Here, says the celebrated interpreter, the law of the love of God is spoken of. But that commandment, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, Deut. vi. could not, under the Old Testament, have its full efficacy on the hearts of believers because "where there is fear (which they who differed nothing from servants, could not be without, Gal. iv. 1.) there is no perfect love, 1 John iv. 18." And when the love of God is shed abroad in the heart by the Holy Ghost, Rom. v. 5. and the love of God is not bestowed with sadness, as formerly, but with the exceeding joy of sons, it is excellently, and, as it were, peculiarly said, that the law of God is written in the heart. All this we may find in Sum. de fœd. § 352.

and with the ex

XXV. But I don't meet with these things in the sacred writings; for they declare that even the ancient believers loved God, Psal. xviii. 1. and Psal. cxvi. 1. and that as their Father, Is. lxiii. 16. ceeding joy of sons, Psal. xliii. 4. and without any fear, that did not become the children of God, Psal. xlvi. 2. and Psal. xxiii. 4. nay, that they had a joyful sense of the love of God, shed abroad in their hearts, Psal. iv. 7. and heard God saying to their souls, I am thy salvation, Psal. xxxv. 3. In a word, that they delighted themselves in God's commandments, which they loved, Psal. cxix. 47. What can now remain as a requisite towards writing the law on the heart?

XXVI. But yet you will say, something is here promised to be obtained by virtue of the new covenant, which the old could not give, in the place of which the new was substituted on account of its imperfections. I answer, The apostle does not here oppose the covenant of grace, as it is dispensed after the coming of Christ, to the same covenant of grace, as it was dispensed before; but opposes the covenant of grace, as

in its full efficacy under the New Testament, to the national covenant made with the Israelites at mount Sinai; and as a spiritual covenant to a typical. In which covenant the people promised obedience to God; and God promised the people, that, if they performed that obedience, he would accept and reward it; but did not promise to give them a heart to obey: as may be seen in their first engaging in covenant, Exod. xix. 5, 6, 8. and in the solemn confirmation of it, Exod. xxiv. 7, 8. where there is no promise made of a new heart. And therefore, in consequence of this covenant, the law was not written on the heart of the people of Israel. And hence it was, that they broke that covenant by their apostasy, and made it of no effect: and that God refused to be called their God, and to acknowledge them for his people; and that in contempt he called them the people of Moses, rather than his own, Exod. xxxii. 7. Here a better covenant is opposed to that Israelitish covenant, which is not formally the covenant of grace, but is only considered with respect to its typical or shadowy pomp, the effect of which is the writing the law on the heart, and communion with God, as the fountain of salvation. Moreover, that covenant is referred to the days of the Messiah; not that it was only then to exist in those effects of it; but that at that time it would be exceeding glorious, and produce effects very conspicuous. However, the elect from among Israel, even in the ancient times, besides their engagements by the Sinaitic covenant, were joined to God by the covenant of grace, which he had solemnly renewed with Abraham. And from that covenant they had every thing, that the writing the law on the heart comprizes, and God himself for their God, that is, the fountain of salvation. the covenant of grace, under which the ancients were,

As

is not to be confounded with, so neither is it to be separated from, the Sinaitic covenant; neither are we to think, that believers were without all those things, which were not promised by the Sinaitic covenant; and which the typical covenant, because of its weakness and unprofitableness, could not bestow; as they were likewise partakers of the Abrahamic covenant, which was a pure covenant of grace: and hence were derived the spiritual and saving benefits of the Israelites.

XXVII. Fourthly, The godly, who are zealous for the truth, are not without cause offended, when they read in express terms, that "justification is promised in scripture, as a blessing not of the ancient, but of the latter times," Sum. Theol. c. 69. § 3. that "remission is promised, as a gift of the New Testament," de fæd. § 353. That " before Christ came, there was no remission," Indag. nat. Sabbat. § 3. And in a word, that "no sin was properly forgiven under the Old Testament," Sum. Theol. c. 96. § 26.

XXVIII. But he who speaks so, understands, by remission of sins and by justification, something more than the will to remit the punishment of sin, and to bestow eternal life for the sake of the Mediator, received by faith. He means by these terms, "that then the will to punish sin is excluded, by appointing a sacrifice for sin; and the declaration and testimony included; that sin is blotted out and expiated :" as he explains himself in Animadv. ad quæst. 83. quæst. 68. This he has expressed more clearly, Sum. Theol. c. 51. § 9. "As to that justification, which is the discharge and perfecting of the conscience, or the consolation arising on account of the cause of righteousness being now manifested, they had not that formerly."---He has accurately and briefly explained the whole of his meaning in Comment, ad Col. ii. § 110. "In sum, the

difference of remission, according to the times, is thus : 1. There was a remission of sins, and indeed a confession of sin not as yet expiated, and of righteousness not as yet brought in, but without bondage and a yoke; even before the law previous to which sin was not imputed. 2. There was a remission of sins with bondage, a yoke and ordinances, which exacted a handwriting contrary to them, both evident and plain; and that under the law. 3. There is a remission of sins, with a declaration of righteousness being brought in, and of the death of Christ, for the doing away of sin, even on account of the blotting out the hand-writing, and that under the New-Testament."

XXIX. Against all this I offer the following considerations. As the scripture asserts, in express terms, that the ancient fathers had remission of sins and justification, it is neither laudable nor prudent to deny it. For, in what sense soever you do it, it looks at least like an attempt to gainsay God, and correct his language. Which ought to be very far from every one that loves and reveres God. Besides, the scripture is express; as concerning remission of sins, Psal. cxxx. 4. But there is forgiveness with thee, Exod. xxxiv. 7. forgiving iniquity, and transgression, and sin; so concerning justification, Jam. ii. 21. Abraham our father was justified, and Rom. iv. 2, 3. As God has declared, that these had remission and justification, to what purpose then is this denied? You will alledge, you have done so in a different sense: but let us now consider whether in a right and a good one.

1

XXX. By remission of sins and justification you understand absolution, on account of the payment being actually made, together with an entire discharge from the hand-writing; such as certainly did not exist under the Old Testament. But I do not remember, that any