celebrated author quotes these things here, in which though even the word PARESIS was to be found, yet certainly not the thing itself, which he would have signified by that term.

XLI. The learned author should have also more fully explained, in what manner God kept silence in former times. For he did not keep silence with respect to sin, when he demanded the hand-writing of the sinner, and charged him with guilt not yet expiated, which, according to this famous author, was done by the law of Moses; but, as I think, by the first institution of sacrifices; and if these were types of Christ's sacrifice, as doubtless they were, they at the same time signified, that the true expiatory sacrifice was not yet offered. Neither did God keep silence as to pardon, but proclaimed the testament of grace, whereby he assured believers, that, on account of the Messiah's covenant-engagement, he would never require them to pay a ransom for their own sins. What is then that important silence, on account of which that act of God towards the ancients may be called PARESIS?

XLII. We conclude, that the distinction of PARESIS and APHESIS, so much commended, is not of that importance, as, on that account, to set on fire the academical chair, the pulpit, and the press now, for so many years past, and the giddy vulgar rent into factions thereby. Since it cannot be denied, that the remission which the fathers enjoyed, may, from the practice of the Greek language, be called, and was actually called by Greek authors APHESIS: and no passage can be produced, where it is called PARESIS, in the sense now forced upon us.

XLIII. But the illustration given by the excellent James Altingius, merits our regard; who, Heptad. 2. dissert. 2. § 92. seq. speaks almost to the following pur

1

pose: Three things are required to a full and perfect APHESIS, forgiveness; namely, the taking away, the transferring, and the expiating of sin. The taking away of sin is that act, whereby the guilt is removed from the offender; that though he has sinned, yet he is not under the obligation to punishment. This is pointed out by the term NOSE, when it signifies to remove, and take away, Exod. xxxiv. 7. Psal. xcix. 8. & xxxii. 5. & lxxxv. 2. & xxv. 18. The transferring of sin is that act, whereby the guilt, which is removed from the of fender, is transferred to the surety, that he may be obliged to answer for it as was done in the case of a sacrifice, by the imposition of hands, which then bore and carried the guilt. This, he thinks, was pointed out by the word HÆNGEBIR, he caused to pass, he transferred, 2 Sam. xii. 13. when David said, I have sinned, or I am guilty, against the Lord: Nathan answers, Jehovah also HÆNGEBIR, hath put away (caused to pass) thy sin, guilt, thou shalt not die. And the angel, the Lord, Zech. iii. 4. says, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee. Which words ascribe this transferring to God, as the Creditor, and to Christ, as the Surety. But it is also what the debtor may claim whence David prays for it, 2 Sam. xxiv. 10. And now, I beseech thee, O Lord, take away (cause to pass) the iniquity of thy servant. And Solomon, Eccl. xi. 10. because we must give an account of all our actions to God at the last judgment, enjoins us to put away (cause to pass) evil from thy flesh. Which cannot otherwise be done (as the evil done can on no account be undone) than by transferring or transporting sin. And he imagines, that this transferring is what the apostle calls PARESIS, remission. The expiation of sin is that act, by which the guilt, removed from the offender, and transferred to the Surety, is expiated by him who bears

all the punishment, to which the sinner was bound, so that divine justice shall have nothing more to demand, much less to inflict. This is expressed by the word CAPHAR, to expiate, to cover with the blood of payment, that the writing of sin may be cancelled, and no longer appear. This last act is at length followed by a complete APHESIS, remission, which absolutely discharges from every demand, either upon the debtor, or the Surety so that, after this, there is no further any occasion for a sacrifice for sin, Heb. x. 18. all remembrance of it being entirely effaced, ver. 3. compared with ver. 17. Having thus explained these things, the very learned author proceeds as follows: Under the Old Testament, believers were without this last degree of expiation, because the time appointed was not yet come, and consequently the APHESIS, forgiveness, which follows upon it. Their sins were not expiated, and the hand-writing remained in its full force uncancelled, as also the remembrance of transgression was often repeated, &c. All which were at length abolished by the death, cross, and the blood of Christ's cross. But yet these believers were not without the two former degrees, of taking away and transferring; which are elegantly joined together by Job, chap. vii. 20, 21. I have sinned, what shall I do unto thee, O thou preserver of men? Why hast thou set me as a mark against thee, so that I am a burden to myself? and why dost thou not pardon (take away) my transgression, and take away (cause to pass) mine iniquity? Take away from me the guilt, under the weight of which I shall otherwise faint and sink; and transfer it to another, who is able to bear it; namely, the Surety; seeing by all means satisfaction must be made. The very learned author prosecutes this subject at further length, which none will repent their having perused. And indeed I always look

ed upon the subject thus explained to be true and sound doctrine, which I likewise publicly testified. My only scruple was, whether this clear and explicit doctrine relating to the transferring of sin to the score of the Messiah, could agree with the simplicity of the Old Testament, and was generally thus known to the ancient believers; and likewise whether it could be solidly proved by the word HÆNGEBIR Should any

think me too scrupulous in hesitating about this, I am not now inclined obstinately to contradict him; but have I, on that account, deserved so unkind treatment at the hands of the learned author, as may be seen Heptad. 3. dissert. 4. § 27. and Heptad. 4. dissert. 3. § 14 ? I am indeed, sorry, that such resentment dwells in heavenly breasts; however, I think, that I must take care lest either the passions of others, or my own, should at any time cloud my mind in the discernment of truth. Sacred candour! descend, and gently glide into our soul, that, with the greatest cheerfulness, we may receive what is well said, even from those who are displeased with us; and with equal readiness disclaim what we ourselves may have less accurately advanced.

XLIV. Fifthly, We dare not deny, that adoption, in a certain respect and in some degree of eminence, may be accounted a blessing of the New Testament; so far, namely, as it imports that condition, not whereby believers are distinguished from the children of the devil and of wrath, and constituted heirs of divine grace and glory (which is a dignity common to all believers in all ages) but whereby believers of the New Testament are preferred to children, who differ not much from servants. In which sense the apostle ascribes adoption eminently to the fulness of time, Gal. iv. 4.-7. Where Calvin comments thus on ver. 5. "For even the fathers under the Old Testament were assured of their adop

tion; but did not then so fully enjoy their privilege. Here therefore adoption is taken, just as redemption, Rom. viii. 23. for possession itself. For as, at the last day, we shall enjoy the fruit of our redemption; so now we enjoy the fruit of adoption, of which the holy fathers, before the coming of Christ, were not partakers." And on ver. 7. "Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son: that is, in the Christian church there is no longer any state of servitude, but the condition of sons." He again therefore speaks of the difference between the Old and New Testament. "Even the ancients were the sons of God, and heirs through Christ: but we in a quite different manner; because we have Christ present, and therefore enjoy his benefits." Consult what we have more largely explained, book iii. chap. 10. And, if I mistake not, this is the very meaning of the brethren, in commenting on Gal. iv. § 56. "Let it only be observed, that adoption is not said to be so peculiar to the New Testament, as if the Old was entirely destitute of it. For the apostle presupposes, that even those that were in bondage under the elements of the world, were heirs.

XLV. But what is said elsewhere, de fæd. § 352. is very harsh: "Though the saints under the Old Testament received the sanctifying Spirit, yet he did not work in them that affection, which was either worthy of God, as a Father, or of them, as children; but there was in them a Spirit of bondage to fear. On the contrary, they who are under the New Testament, do, immediately upon believing, receive the promise of the Holy Spirit, Gal. iii. 14. that is, the Spirit of sons, which was promised, and whose it is to cry, Abba, Father, Rom. viii. 15."

XLVI. On which I observe, 1. It is supposed without proof, that the Spirit of bondage was peculiar to