is it to take hold of the fortress of the Lord, but to believe in the Lord? And finally, Paul, by a long enumeration of examples, which he took from the Old-testament fathers, attempts to prove this general truth, that without faith it is impossible to please God.*

XLII. Our adversaries object, that the passages above mentioned, treat only of a general faith in God, and not of a special faith in Christ. We deny not, that as Christ was then more abscurely revealed, so believers had likewise a less distinct knowledge of him; yet we boldly affirm, that they had some knowledge and sufficient for their time, upon the authority of our Lord, who says, Abraham saw my day, and rejoicedit and of Paul, who testifies concerning Moses, that he esteemed the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt; and concerning the other fathers, that they saw the promisses afar off, and embraced them ;§ and lastly of Peter, who tells us, that the prophets searched what or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ which was in them, did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Since then these things were said of the heroes of that time, it will not be hard to determine, what we are to judge concerning other believers, according to their rank and station. And the patriarchs and prophets had not acted the part of honest men, if they had enviously concealed from other believers, such a valuable talent, which was committed to their trust.

XLIII. The apostle writes nothing in opposition to this truth, when he says,¶ But before faith came, we were kept under the law. For it is far from the apostle's intention to deny, that faith in Christ prevailed before his coming in the flesh; because, in the same chapter, he had highly commended the faith of Abraham, and proposed it as a pattern to us all.** But by faith we here understand either the object of faith, the † John viii. 56. Heb. xi. 26. ◊ Ver. 13. **Gal. iii. 6, 7, 9.

*Heb. xi. 6. Pet. i. 11.

¶ Gal. iii. 23.

doctrine or the gosple, as chap. i. 23. and the Lord Jesus himself, believed on in the world,* or the faith of the redemption already actually wrought out, as contradistinguished from the hope of the Old-Testament saints, who, with earnest longing, as it were, expected the coming of the Lord, waiting for the consolation of Israel, Luke ii. 25. And thus we have now shewn, that the Old-Testament saints had the same promises of eternal life with us, to be obtained by the same Christ, and the same faith in him, and consequently also had the same covenant of grace with us.

Of the different Oeconomies or Dispensations of the Covenant of Grace.

T nevertheless pleased God, at sundry periods of time, and in diverse manners, to dispense the same co-, venant of grace. We shall exhibit, in this chapter a short representation of these dispensations, in such a method as, first, simply to explain what, in this matter, seems to us most accurate and agreeable to the whole tenor of scripture; and then freely, but calmly, weigh the reflections of other learned men.

II. The diversity of these economies is comprized under two principal heads, which the apostle calls by the names of the Old and New Testament. Where we are to note, that by the Old Testament, we are by no means to understand the legal covenant, concerning obtaining salvation by our own works; which is very different from the covenant of grace. But, according to us and Paul, the Old Testament denotes the testament [or covenant] of grace under that dispensation, which subsisted before the coming of Christ in the flesh, and was proposed formerly to the fathers under the vail of certain types, pointing out some imperfec

tion of that state, and consequently that they were to be abolished in their appointed time: or, as Calvin has very well expressed it,* The Old Testament was a dispensation involved in a shadow and ineffectual observation of ceremonies, and was therefore temporary, because a thing in suspense, till established on a firm and substantial bottom. The New Testament is the testament [or covenant] of grace, under that dispensation which succeeded the former, after being consecrated and established by the blood of Christ. For this reason Christ calls the cup, which he reached to his disciples in the supper, the cup of the new testament in his blood.t to signify, that then at length the New Testament would be perfected, when sealed by the blood of the testator shed at his death.

III. It is carefully to be observed, that the difference of these testaments is not to be placed in the substance of the promised inheritance, as if, under the Old Testament, was allotted the inheritance of the land of Canaan, and the inheritance of heaven under the New. Nothing can be imagined less accurate and just. The allotment of the heavenly inheritance proceeds from the testament of grace absolutely considered, which remains invariably one and the same under every œconomy. Only the same inheritance is proposed in a different manner; in the Old Testament under shadows, and in a certain period thereof, under the pledge of the land of Canaan, and which at the appointed time was to be purchased by the death of the testator: in the New Testament. clearly without a pledge, to which any regard was to be had, and as now purchased by the death of the testator. The promise of the common salvation, which is in Christ, whether formerly made to the fa thers, or to us at this day, does not belong to the Old or New Testament as such, but absolutely to the testament or covenant of grace. The difference of the testaments consists in the different manner of dispensing and proposing the same saving grace, and in some * Institut. lib. 2. c. 11. § 4. † Matth. xxvi, 28.

different adjuncts and circumstances. Whatever was typical in that dispensation, and denoted imperfection, and an acknowledgment that the ransom was not yet paid, belongs to the Old Testament. Whatever shews, that the redemption is actually wrought out, is peculiar to the New Testament. Without carefully adverting to this, it is not possible, we can have an accurate knowledge of the nature of both testaments.

IV. But let us insist a little further on this point, if possibly we may advance, what may set the truth in a clear light. Three things are to be distinguished: the testament of grace, the Old and New Testament. To each its own inheritance is to be assigned. That of the testament of grace is eternal salvation, with every thing belonging to it, through Jesus Christ; which is equally common to believers in all ages. The Old and New Testament being different œconomies of this one testament of grace, which they comprize, suppose also and include the same heavenly inheritance. But in so far as they are different, the inheritance also attributed to each is different. Now, that difference consists chiefly in two things: first, in the different manner of proposing it, which, I hope I have now clearly explained: then, in the circumstantial adjuncts of the principal inheritance. These in the Old Testament are, the inheritance of the land of Canaan, as a pledge of heaven, with a bondage to the elements of the world, and the exclusion of the Gentiles, and a less measure of the Spirit of grace. In the New Testament, the inheritance of the Gentiles, with liberty, and a more plentiful measure of grace.

V. We begin the economy of the Old Testament immediately upon the fall, and the first promise of grace, and end it in Christ; as both the nature of the thing and scripture direct us to do. We argue from the nature of the thing, in this manner: Since believers had the covenant of grace proposed and confirmed to them, immediately after the fall, by such signs, as

contained a confession, that guilt was not yet expiated; and which therefore were, at the time appointed, to be abrogated by the introduction of the New Testament: there can be no reason, why the promise thus proposed and ratified, should not be the Old Testament. We don't refer to the Old Testament the promise of the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head, and of the enmity established between the seed of both; for these things absolutely belong to the covenant of grace. But the sacrifices which are added, by the blood of which that testament was confirmed, belong indeed to the Old Testament. It appears more than probable to us, with some very learned men, from the Mosaic history, that immedi ately upon the promulgation of the covenant of grace, Adam, at the command of God, slew beasts for sacrifice, whose skins were, by the favor of God granted to him and his wife for cloathing: which was not without its mystical signification, as shall be explained in its proper place. It is certain we have an express account of sacrifices, which account in the opinion of chronologers, happened about the year of Adam 129. Seeing therefore these sacrifices belong to the testament of grace, and typically seal the blood of Christ, which was to be shed in due time, and likewise remind of guilt not yet expiated, they can be referred to nothing but the Old Testament. For whatever is thus joined to the covenant of grace, and cannot possibly be referred to the New Testament, the very force of the words requires its being said of the Old Testament. To this argument a certain very learned person objects as follows: " Adam, the deluge, and the rainbow, were types, and previous to the actual performance of redemption, and yet they belong not expressly to the Old Testament. For this last was abrogated with all its shadows. But these others cease not to be types of greater and spiritual things to us." But the answer seems to be easy. The

*

* Gen. iv. 2. & seq.