The Christian Life Part 2 Volume 2, Section 7

The Christian Life Part 2 Volume 2 · Section 7

p. 227SECT. VII. Of the Rise and Progress of Christ's Kingdom.

AS for the first, viz. the beginning and progress of Christ's Kingdom, I shall endeavour to give an account of it in these following Propositions:

First, That the Kingdom of Christ is founded upon the New Covenant.

Secondly, That the new Covenant commenced immediately after the Fall, and was afterwards particularly renewed to Abraham and his Posterity.

Thirdly, That upon its first Commencement Christ was the Mediator of it, and so he continued all along in that particular renewal that was made of it to the People of Israel.

Fourthly, Therefore that as Mediator of this Covenant Christ was King of all that were admitted into it, and particularly of Abraham and his Posterity, or the People of Israel with whom it was renewed.

Fifthly, That after his coming into the world he still retained his Title of King of Israel in particular, till they finally rejected him, and the Covenant in which his Kingdom is founded.

Sixthly, That though the main body of that Nation rejected him, yet there was a Remnant of it that received and acknowledged him as their rightful Lord and King.

p. 228Seventhly, That this Remnant still continued the same individual Kingdom of Christ with the former, though very much reformed and improved.

Eighthly, That to this individual Kingdom of Christ thus reformed and improved was superadded all those Gentiles that were afterwards converted to Christianity.

First, That the Kingdom of Christ is founded in the New Covenant. For it is by the New Covenant that he engages himself to us to be our gracious and merciful Lord, and that we engage our selves to him to be his faithful and obedient Subjects; and from these mutual Engagements results the relation of King and Subjects between him and us. So that the Church or Kingdom of Christ consists of all those People, Nations, and Kindreds, who have been admitted into this Covenant-relation to him, wherein by a solemn Vow of Fealty and Allegiance, they have indispensably obliged themselves to serve and obey him; but of this I shall have occasion to discourse more largely hereafter.

Secondly, Therefore this new Covenant commenced immediately af…er the Fall, and was afterwards in a particular manner renewed to Abraham and his Posterity. For the New Covenant was a Plank thrown forth to Mankind immediately after that woful Shipwreck that was made by the Fall. For no sooner had God denounced his deserved Doom on our lapsed Parents, but to support them from sinking into utter desperation, he subjoyns that gracious promise, Gen. 3.15. The Seed of the woman shall bruise the Serpent's head; p. 229where by the Seed of the woman, not only Christian, but the ancient Iewish Interpreters understand the Messias, and by the Serpent the Devil, who in the form of a Serpent had tempted our first Parents to that fatal revolt which drew after it all those miserable consequents which their Posterity have groaned under ever since; by the Messias his bruising the Serpent's head, is meant his assaulting and crushing under foot the very seat of all his strength and power, and finally rescuing mankind from under his Dominion and Tyranny. For this Promise was the first dawning, the morning Twilight of the New Covenant; and, so far as we can find, the only discovery of it to the Old World, and therefore in all probability was the sole ground and object of that faith by which Abel and Enoch were justified in the sight of God, Heb. 11.4, 5. For though that Promise was but a dark and obscure intimation of the Gospel-Covenant, yet thus much it plainly proposed to them, that from the first Parents of the World there should descend a certain Person, who should conquer the Devil that had conquered them, and thereby repair the damage of their Apostasie; by believing of which, it seems, and acting accordingly, they found grace and favour in the sight of God; but however it is apparent that the New Covenant was in force in the time of the Old World, because it is evident both that the faith of the Ante-diluvian Patriarchs was actually accepted by God, and that their faith could upon no other account have been accepted by him, but only in the vertue of this New Covenant.

p. 230But after the Floud God more clearly and expresly renewed this gracious Covenant with Abraham and his Children, Gen. 12.2, 3. where he promises to bless him, to make his name great, and himself a blessing, and to bless them that blessed him, and curse them that cursed him, and in him, that is, in the Messias, who should descend from him, vid. Gal. 3.16. to make all the Families of the Earth blessed; which Covenant he again renews to him, Cap. 13. and Cap. 15. and then in Chap. 17. he yet again renews it more largely and solemnly, assuring him not only that he should be a Father of many Nations, &c. but that that Covenant should extend to his Posterity as well as to him, and that he would be a God to him, and to his Seed after him; immediately after which he institutes the Ceremony of Circumcision for a perpetual Seal and Ratification of his Covenant between him and them; and upon this Covenant it was that the Iewish Church was founded. For so Circumcision, which was the standing Seal of this Covenant, was also the standing Rite of admission into that Church; which is a plain argument, that to be a Member of that Church, and a Confederate in this Covenant was one and the same thing, because they were admitted both by one and the same Rite. Now from the New Testament it is evident, that this Covenant with Abraham, upon which the Iewish Church was built, was the Gospel or New Covenant. For so Gal. 3.8. the Apostle calls the delivery of this Covenant preaching the Gospel to Abraham, which must be apparently fals, if this and the Gospel Covenant were not the same; and in verse 29. he tells them, if ye be p. 231Christ's, i. e. true Christians, then are ye Abraham's Seed, i. e. that spiritual Seed to whom the Covenant with Abraham extends, and heirs according to the Promise, i. e. of that Covenant; but how could they be Abraham's seed, by being Christians, and heirs to the promise of Abraham's Covenant, if the Seed with whom Abraham's Covenant was made, were of a different Religion from Christians, and the Covenant it self were of a different kind from the Christian Covenant? But that it was the very same, appears yet further, because, in the first place, it requires the same Condition, viz. an obediential or practical Faith. For so, Gen. 15.6. it is said, that Abraham believed in the Lord, and he accounted it to him for righteousness, i. e. though he had formerly been guilty of many sins, and at present could not challenge any reward from God, yet upon that obedient faith which he exercised, God acquitted and justified him, or, which is the same thing, dealt with him as if he had been perfectly righteous; and accordingly his Circumcision, which was the Ratification of that Covenant, is in Rom. 4.11. called the Seal of the righteousness of faith, i. e. of his Iustification, or being accounted righteous, and dealt with accordingly by God, upon his Faith or practical Assent to God's Promise. And accordingly the Apostle, Gal. 3.9. thus concludes, so then they which be of faith, i. e. sincere Believers, as Abraham was, are blessed with faithful Abraham; in which words he expresly asserts that Abraham and Christians are blessed upon the same terms, viz. upon an obediential and practical Faith.

p. 232And as Abraham's required the same Condition with the New Covenant, so it also contained the same Promises. For although those Promises according to the outside and literal sence of them, do contain only temporal blessings, yet it is apparent, that they had all the eternal blessings of that New Covenant lock'd and treasured up in the mystical sence of them. For thus S. Paul expresly tells us, that the Iustification of the New Covenant was couched in that Promise that was made to Abraham, Gal. 3.8. The Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the Heathen through faith, preached the Gospel before unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all Natio…s be bl…ssed; which necessarily implies, that in that bl…ssing was included their Iustification in the sight of God. And as for divine Grace and Assistance to inable men to repent and persevere in well-doing, the Prophet Micah tells us, that one part of God's performing his truth unto Iacob, and his mercy to Abraham, consisted in his subduing our iniquities, and casting our sins into the depths of the Sea, Micah 7.19, 20. And lastly, as for eternal life, the Apostle plainly tells us, that God gave the inheritance, i. e. of Justification to etern…l life, to Abraham by promise, Gal. 3.18. upon which gift we are assured that Abraham looked for a City which hath f…undations, whose builder and mak…r is God, Heb. 11.10. Since therefore both the conditions required, and the blessings promised, in Abraham's and the New Covenant were in all particulars the same, it necessarily follows, th…t they were one and the same Covenant. It is true indeed, as to the manner of the revelation p. 233of it there was a vast difference; for whereas in the Gospel it is revealed throughout with the greatest clearness and perspicuity, and in plain and literal terms, it was delivered vailed to Abraham and his Posterity under general and obscure expressions, which at best exhibited to them but a dark and confused apprehension of it. But however it is still the same Covenant, notwithstanding it be thus differently expressed, even as it is the same Sun that sometimes is overcast with clouds, and other times shines forth with a full splendor.

Thirdly, From the very first Commencement of this Covenant Christ was Mediator of it, and so hath continued all along under that particular Renewal of it, which God made to the People of Israel. For the Scripture expresly affirms, that he is the Mediator and Surety of this New and better Covenant, that is, that it is he who as our Advocate with God obtains for us the Blessings of this Covenant, and who as our King under God dispenses th…m to us; and if he be thus the Mediator of this Covenant now, he must have always been so, even from the Fall, upon which it commenced, to his Ascension into Heaven, otherwise the New Covenant, upon which he now Mediates, must have been four thousand years without a Mediator; which, considering the whole state and condition of it, can by no means be allowed. For besides that, the Fall of man was the reason why God withdrew himself from all immediate converse with him, and that therefore it is reasonably to be presumed, that whatsoever converse he had with him afterwards, it was through a Mediator, there is nothing more evident p. 234from Scripture than that this very Covenant, which is the standing Medium of God's converse and intercourse with men, was granted to us by God in consideration of Christ's Death and Sacrifice. Since therefore it was granted long before Christ died, even from the Fall of Adam, it must be granted upon Christ's obliging and engaging himself to the Father to die for us in the fulness of time; which engagement of his was virtually and in effect an offering up himself a Sacrifice for us; God being as much secured of it upon his engagement, as if he had actually performed it. Upon which account he is called the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, Rev. 13.8. because upon his obliging himself to die for us, which was immediately after the Fall, the Event became as certain and infallible as if in that very moment he had breathed out his Soul upon the Cross. And accordingly God proceeded on it as on a sure and certain Fund, and in consideration of it granted the new Covenant to the World. Hence the Apostle tells us, that it was by means of his death that there was redemption for the transgressions that were under the first Covenant, Heb. 9.15. Since therefore it was in consideration of Christ's future Sacrifice that God first granted this Covenant to men, it necessarily follows, that upon the same consideration he at the same time appointed Christ to be the Mediator of it, because, as I shewed before, he is Mediator in the right and vertue of his Sacrifice by which he obtained it; and therefore since his Sacrifice had the same vertue in it when it was future, as it hath now when it is past, he had the same right to be p. 235Mediator of it then, as he hath now. In short, Christ's Sacrifice was as certain in God's account, and therefore as prevalent with him, before, as after it was offered; and therefore since his Mediatorship of the New Covenant is wholly owing to the prevalence of his Sacrifice, there was the same reason why God should admit him to be Mediator of it before it was offered as after; and accordingly long before he offered up his Sacrifice, he is called the Angel or Minister of the Covenant, Mal. 3.1. And St. Paul expresly tells us, that four hundred and thirty years before the Law of Moses this Covenant was confirmed of God to Abraham in Christ, Gal. 3.17. and if it was then confirmed in Christ, it is certain that then Christ was the Mediator of it.

Fourthly, Christ's being always Mediator of this Covenant necessarily implies his having been always King under God of all that ever were admitted into it, and particularly of the People of Israel; because his Kingly Office is so necessary and essential a part of his Mediatorship, that he cannot be properly a Mediator without it. For to mediate as he doth between God and men, is to act Authoritatively for and in the behalf of both parties; so that if he act only for one, he cannot be truly said to be a Mediator between both; but in his acting Authoritatively for God consists his Royalty or Kingly Office, as you may see p. 7, 8. and if his Mediatorial Office necessarily includes a Kingly power, to be sure that power must extend to all that ever were admitted into the Covenant upon which he Mediates. For how can any man be admitted into that Covenant, of which he p. 236is the authorized Mediator, without being subject to all the Authority which his Mediatorship necessarily implies?

Hence therefore it follows, that Christ hath been always King of the Church of God, or confederate Society of the true Worshippers of him, in all Ages of the world. For thus in the Old world St. Peter tells us, 1 Pet. 3.19. that by that very Spirit whereby Christ rose from the dead he went and preached to the spirits in prison, i. e. by Noah, who by the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit was a Preacher or Herald of Righteousness, Christ preached to the Spirits or Souls of men, whilst they were yet shut up in, and united to their bodies, long before that general separation of their Souls from their Bodies which was made by the Floud; vid. Dr. Ham. in Loc. at this time, I say, whilst they were yet alive, Christ preached to them, to warn them of that general destruction which was pursuing them, and would ere long overtake them, unless they speedily repented; which shews that long before the Floud Christ acted as a King in issuing out by his Heralds his Royal Proclamations to men to declare his Will and Pleasure to them, and warn them of the fatal consequence of their disobedience to it.

Soon after the Floud mankind almost universally Apostatized from God to Idolatry; so that the Church or Society of the true Worshippers of him was quickly reduced into a very narrow compass; so that four hundred years after it seems very probable th…t Melchisedeck was the only King in the world who was not an Idolater. And p. 237now God seeing his Church almost totally extinguished by this general defection of mankind from his Covenant; to recover and repair it, he calls Abraham out of his Idolatry and Idolatrous Country, and with him and his Posterity renews the New Covenant which the rest of mankind had renounced and deserted; and to secure them from ever revolting from it, he seals and ratifies it with them by a sign in their flesh, viz. that of Circumcision, which he gave them as a mark to distinguish and preserve them distinct from the Idolatrous Nations round about them. And when afterwards the Posterity of Abraham was multiplied in Aegypt into a numerous Nation, and this Rite of Circumcision being by Ishmael and Esau derived to their Posterity, and so made common to other Nations with Israel, God to renew this distinction gives them the Ceremonial Law upon their coming out of Aegypt; one great design of which, even as that of Circumcision, was to diversifie them from their neighbouring Idolaters by contrary rites and observances; and hence the Mosaick Law is called by the Apostle a middle Wall of partition, Eph. 2.14. alluding to that middle Wall in the Temple which divided the Court of the Iews from the Court of the Gentiles, or Gentile Proselytes of the Gate, who because they were not circumcised, were counted unclean, and upon that account divided from the Circumcised by a Wall of stone of three Cubits high; and a little after, ver. 15. he calls this Law the enmity between the Jews and Gentiles, because one great design of it was to divide and separate the Jews from the Gentiles, and thereby to secure them p. 238from revolting from the New Covenant by mingling and confounding themselves with Idolaters. By which means the New Covenant became in a manner appropriate to Israel, none being allowed admission into it but only such as freely submitted themselves to the distinguishing Laws of that Communion by which they were separated from all other Nations. Hence the Apostle tells us, that to them pertained the Covenants, Rom. 9.4. i. e. the New Covenant it self, together with Circumcision the Seal of it, which is also called a Covenant. And the same Apostle puts together being Aliens to the Commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the Covenants of Promise, as inseparable Concomitants, Eph. 2.12. And hence it is that they are stiled God's peculiar People, Deut. 14.2. and his peculiar Treasure, Psal. 135.4. because by this Covenant which pass'd between God and them they were separated to God from all other Nations; and upon the same account also they are called the Lord's portion, and the Lot of his inheritance, Deut. 32.9. The New Covenant therefore being thus particularly confined to the People of Israel, whilst it continued so, Christ who was always the Mediator of it must be particularly the Mediatorial Head and King, that under the most High God and Father ruled and governed that Church and People. But because upon the truth of this Assertion this whole Argument depends, I shall endeavour, as briefly as I can, to evince and prove it in these following Propositions:

First, That there was a certain extraordinary Angel who frequently appeared and spake to the p. 239Jewish Patriarchs, who is sometimes called Iehovah, and sometimes the Angel of Iehovah, who ordinarily assumed to himself divine Appellations, and to whom those holy men ordinarily rendered divine Honours, and Vows, and Sacrifices.

Secondly, This extraordinary Angel was a divine Person, and no created Being.

Thirdly, That he was that divine Person that descended upon Mount Sinai, and from thence removed into the Tabernacle, and thence into the Temple.

Fourthly, That this divine Person was not God the Father.

Fifthly, That he was God the Son.

First, That there was a certain extraordinary Angel, who frequently appeared, and spake to the Jewish Patriarchs, who is sometimes called Iehovah, and sometimes the Angel of Iehovah, &c. Of which I might give innumerable instances, but for brevities sake shall only mention two; the first is that of Gen. 18. where we read of three men, that is as all agree, three Angels in humane shapes, one of which in verse 13. is expresly called Iehovah; after which upon their going towards Sodom, the same Iehovah speaks to Abraham again, ver. 17. And Iehovah said, shall I hide from Abraham that which I am doing? and so again ver. 20. then in ver. 22. it is said, that the men turned their faces from thence▪ and went up to Sodom, but Abraham stood yet before Iehovah, i. e. two of the Angels went their way to Sodom; for so Chap. 19. v. 1. we read but of two of them that arrived thither; so that the Iehovah before whom Abraham stood must be the third who p. 240stay'd behind conferring with Abraham, in which Conference Abraham several times addresses to him under the name of Iehovah, and verse 25. calls him the Iudge of all the earth, and then verse 33. it is said, that Iehovah went away when he had made an end of speaking unto Abraham. The other instance is in Genes. 28. from verse 12. where you have recorded the Vision of Iacob's Ladder, above which, ver. 13. it is said, Iehovah stood and said, I am the Lord God of Abraham thy Father, &c. upon which Iacob when he awaked cries out, Surely Iehovah is in this place, ver. 16. thereupon he sacrifices to him, ver. 18. calls the place Bethel, or the House of God, ver. 19. and offers a Vow to him, ver. 20. wherein he obliges himself to acknowledge him for his God, ver. 21. but Chap. 31. ver. 11, 13. this divine Person is called both the Angel of God, and the God of Bethel; and Iacob himself in Gen. 48 15, 16. calls him the God before whom his Father Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed him all his life long, and the Angel which redeemed him from all evil. And with this God in the form of a man we find Iacob wrestling a whole night together, supposing him, as it seems, to be an ordinary Angel, Chap. 32. ver. 24. but understanding afterwards who he was, he calls the name of the place Peniel, because he had seen God face to face, ver. 30. which God in Hos. 12.4, 5. is called both the Angel, and the Lord of Hosts. And this divine Angel, or Angel of God, if you pursue the sacred History, you will find is the very same that afterwards appeared to Moses in the burning bush, & under him conducted Israel through the red Sea and Wilderness p. 241in the appearance of a Pillar of fire and cloud. For so he is all along called promiscuously Iehovah, and the Angel of Iehovah, vid. Exod. 3.2, 4. Exod. 13.21. compared with Chap. 14.19.

Secondly, That he was a divine Person and no created Angel, is evident not only from his assuming to himself the incommunicable Name, but also the incommunicable Attributes of Iehovah. For so he tells Iacob, not only that he was Iehovah God of Abraham his Father, and the God of Isaac, Gen. 28.13. not only that he was the God of Bethel, where he anointed a Pillar, and vowed a vow to him, Gen. 31.13. but also that he was God Almighty, Gen. 35.11. whereas the Psalmist tells us, that Iehovah is God's name alone, Psal. 83.18. and Almightiness, as all agree, is an incommunicable perfection of God; so that had this Angel been a created Being, it would have been the highest degree of Sacriledge and Profaneness in him to arrogate to himself that incommunicable Name and Attribute. I know it is usually objected, that he assumed God's Name and Attributes, not as due to his Person, but to his Character, as he was the Embassador of God, and so represented his Majesty; but where, I beseech you, was it ever heard that an Embassador was allowed to assume the Name and Titles of his King? Would it not be deemed high Arrogance at least, if not High Treason, for an English Embassador in the delivery of his Embassie thus to declare himself, I am that high and mighty Prince James the Second, King of England, &c. And can it be thought that God, who under the Iewish Oeconomy was so peculiarly p. 242jealous of his honour, and had such peculiar reason for it, considering the infinite proneness of that people to Idolatry, would not only permit, but authorize a Creature to assume his Name and Attributes, and not only avouch it self to be God, but also arrogate his incommunicable Perfections and Prerogatives? The Prophets, we know, were God's Embassadors as well as the Angels, but yet they never presumed to call themselves God or Iehovah, or to arrogate Omnipotence to themselves, which yet they had as much right to do as this Angel, supposing him to be a created Being; but on the contrary, whereas this Angel always spake in his own name, and delivered what he said as his own word, the Prophets always spake in a different stile, and still ushered in what they delivered with a thus saith the Lord; and the same to be sure this blessed Angel would have done, had he been only an Embassador from God. But besides that he assumed God's Name, and Attributes; he not only admitted but required divine honours to be rendered to him. For so, as hath been shewn before, he not only admitted Iacob to offer Sacrifice, and a religious Vow to him, and therein to devote himself to him as to his God, but also required him to make and dedicate an Altar to him at Bethel, Gen. 35.1. so also he admitted Ioshuah to fall on his face to the Earth and worship him, and not only so, but bids him loose his shooe from his foot, telling him that the place whereon he stood was holy, as being consecrated by his divine Presence, Iosh. 5.14, 15. and the same command, inforced with the same reason, he gave before to Moses out of the burning p. 243bush, Exod. 3.5. and to name no more, he received a burnt-offering, and a meat-offering at the hands of Manoah and his Wife, Iudg. 13.23. And is it likely that any created good Angel would ever have admitted these things, especially considering how strictly S. Iohn was forbid by the Angel, at whose feet he fell down to worship him, See thou do it not, I am thy fellow servant — worship God, Rev. 19.10. and so again, Rev. 22.9.

Thirdly, That he was also that divine Person that descended upon Mount Sinai, and from thence removed into the Tabernacle, and thence into the Temple, is evident from what is recorded of him, Numb. 22.22, &c. where we have the History of the Angel of the Lord's meeting Balaam on the way as he was going to curse the People of Israel; now that by that Angel there is meant this divine Angel, or Angel Iehovah appears, first, from verse 32. where he tells Balaam, Behold I come out to be an Adversary, because thy way is perverse before me, i. e. it is contrary to that will of mine which I declared to thee, verse 12. where it is said, That God said unto Balaam, thou shalt not go with them, thou shalt not curse the People, for they are blessed, which is a plain evidence, that this God and that Angel of Iehovah were the same Person. And then, secondly, verse 35. it is said that this Angel of Iehovah said unto Balaam, go with the men, but only the word that I shall speak unto thee, that thou shalt speak, whereas he that afterwards spake unto him, and instructed him what he should say to Balak, is expresly called God and Iehovah; for so Numb. 23.4, 5. it is said, that God met Balaam, and p. 244that Iehovah put a word into his mouth; whence it appears, that this God and Iehovah was the same Person with that Angel of the Lord th…t gave him that charge, but only the word that I shall speak unto thee, that shalt thou speak. But then, thirdly and lastly, Balaam himself calls the app…rition of this Angel, the vision of the Almighty, Numb. 24.4, 16. which sh…ws that this Angel was the Almighty himself.

Now this Angel Iehovah, Balaam in his inspired Parable calls Iehovah the God and King of Israel, and the God that brought them out of Aegypt, Numb. 23.21, 22. which is the very stile of that. God that descended upon Mount Sinai, I am Iehovah thy God that brought thee out of the Land of Aegypt, Exod. 20.2. which is a plain argument, that it was all but one and the same Person.

But then Iudg. 2. we have the History of another Appearance of this great Angel of Iehovah, who, as we are told in verse 1. came from Gilgal unto Bochim, and by what he there saith of himself, it is evident that he was that very God that came down upon Mount Sinai, and afterwards dwelt in the Tabernacle; for there he declares, that it was he that made them go up out of Aegypt, and brought them to the Land which he sware unto their Fathers, which is the language of that God that dwelt in the Tabernacle, vid. Exod. 33.1. that it was he that said, I will never break Covenant with you, and ye shall make no League with the Inhabitants of this Land, and that they should throw down their Altars: but, saith he, ye have not obeyed my voice; why have ye done this? Wherefore I said, I will not drive them out from before ye, but they p. 245shall be as thorns in your sides, and their Gods shall be a snare to you, ver. 1, 2, 3. which are the very words of God from the Tabernacle, as you may see Exod. 34.12, 13. Numb. 33.55. which is a plain Argument, that this Angel and that God that dwelt in the Tabernacle were one and the same Person.

And then that he was the God that afterwards fix'd his abode in the Temple is very apparent. For, besides that no body questions but that it was the same divine Person that brought Israel out of Aegypt, led them through the Wilderness, came down upon Mount Sinai, resided in the Tabernacle, and that afterward removed into the Temple, we have a particular evidence, that this person was the Angel Iehovah, in Isa. 6.1. where the Prophet tells us, that he saw Iehovah sitting on a Throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the Temple; by which it is evident that he appear'd to him in a visible form, else how could the Prophet have seen him? and that sitting, which is a Corporeal Posture; but this the second ver. puts out of all doubt, which attributes to him a face and feet, implying that his appearance was in a humane form, the very same in which this Angel Iehovah was wont to make his appearances to men; and then that Prophet concludes, that he should certainly die, because his eyes had seen the King, the Lord of Hosts; which is the same terrible apprehension that men always expressed upon the appearance of this Angel Iehovah. Thus upon the sight of him Manoah cries out, We shall surely die, because we have seen God, Judg. 13.22. and so also Gideon, Judg. 6.22. and the p. 246Children of Israel, Exod. 20.19. and Moses himself, Exod. 3.6. So that among the Ancients it seems it was a received opinion, that the appearance of this illustrious one did commonly abode death unto those that beheld him. Since therefore the Prophet had the same dreadful apprehension upon his vision of God in the Temple, that all men had before him upon the appearance of this Angel Iehovah to them, it is at least very probable that that God and this Angel were the same divine person.

Fourthly, That this divine Person was not the most High God the Father. For besides that our Saviour tells the Jews, that they had not heard the Father's voice at any time, nor seen his shape or appearance, John 5.37. which is a plain evidence that that divine Person who spake and appeared to their Fathers in a humane voice or shape, was not God the Father, of whom the same Apostle tells us, that no man hath seen God at any time, John 1.18. whereas it is expresly said of Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy Elders of Israel, that they saw the God of Israel, viz. upon Mount Sinai, and, as it is evident from the Text, it was in a humane shape that they saw him, for there was under his feet as it were a paved work of Saphir stone, Exod. 24.9, 10. and if he appeared to them with feet, it is reasonable to suppose that he appeared with all the other parts of a humane body, for though Moses tells the People, that they saw no similitude on the Mount, but only heard a voice, Deut. 4.12. yet this doth not at all hinder, but that Moses and the seventy Elders with him might and did; for p. 247so when Moses desired to see the glory of God upon the Mount, God tells him, thou art not able to see my face, i. e. by reason of the glory and lustre of it, for no man shall see my face and live, i. e. no man can endure without great hazard of his life the brightness and splendor of my countenance, and from this passage in all probability sprang that common opinion in mens minds, that they should surely die whenever they saw God or the Angel Iehovah; and then God proceeds, and tells Moses, that he would place him in the Clift of the Rock, and cover him with his hand whilst he passed by, and that when he was passed by he would take away his hand, and permit him to see his back parts, Exod. 33.20, 21, 22, 23. by all which it seems evident that this Apparition of God upon the Mount, which Moses and the Elders saw, was in a humane form, since it had not only feet, but face, and hands, and back parts, which is not only a farther Evidence that this God was the same divine Person with that Angel Iehovah, who appeared so often in humane shape, but also a plain argument that he was not God the Father, who, as S. Iohn tells us, was never seen in any shape or appearance whatsoever; besides all which, I say, how can the Father, who is the first and supreme person in the holy Trinity, from whom both the Son and holy Spirit are sent, be in any sence stiled (as this divine Person of whom we are treating is) the Angel of Iehovah? For the word Angel, which imports a Messenger, implies some kind of Inferiority to him whose Angel or Messenger he is, & therefore can in no sence be truly and properly applied to the most high God and Father.

p. 248Fifthly, and lastly, That this divine Person was God the Son. For, First, that it was he who appeared to the Patriarchs, and particularly to Abraham, those words of our Saviour plainly imply, in Ioh. 8.56. Your Father Abraham rejoyced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad; where by Abraham's seeing of Christ's day, must necessarily be meant his real, and actual, and personal sight of Christ himself; for so the Jews understood it, Thou art not yet (say they in the following verse) fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? As much as if they should have said, How is it possible that ever thou shouldest personally and actually see Abraham, or he thee, as thy words do import, when as yet thou art not fifty years old, and it is many Ages since that Abraham died. If therefore the Jews did not mistake Christ's sence, it is plain that by seeing his day he meant personally and actually seeing himself; but that they did not mistake him is evident, because if they …ad, Christ ought to have corrected them by explaining himself into some other sence, and not suffer them to run away with such a gross mistake in a matter of such mighty moment; instead of which he plainly allows and c…untenances their sence in the Answer which he gave them, verse 58. Verily, verily I say unto you, before Abraham was I am; as much as if he had said, it is no such impossible matter as you imagine that Abraham should see me and I h…m, because I have a fix'd and eternal existence, and therefore was in being before ever he was bo…n. So that either the Jews apprehended Christ aright, and if so, Abraham really and actually saw him, or Christ in his Answer prevaricated p. 249with them, and meerly plaid upon their mistake; and if Abraham personally saw Christ, it is certain that Christ must be that divine Person that appeared to him. But then

Secondly, That it was he also that brought Israel out of Aegypt, and descended upon Mount Sinai at the gi…ing the Law to them, i. e. who declared himself to be the Lord their God that brought them out of the Land of Aegypt, is apparent from Heb. 12.26. where it is expresly affirmed, that it was Christ's voice which then did shake the Earth, i. e. when the Law was delivered in Thunder from Mount Sinai, which is a plain argument, that Christ was that Iehovah, who came down upon Mount Sinai, and whose voice caused the whole Mount to quake greatly, Exod. 19.18. the same also is evident from Eph. 4.8. Wherefore he saith, i. e. the Psalmist, Psalm 68.18. when he, i. e. Christ (of whom he had been speaking just before, verse 7. ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men; so that either Christ must be the Person of whom the Psalmist speaks, or the Apostle must grosly mis-quote and mis-apply him; and if he be the same Person, then from that Psalm it is evident: First, That it was he that went before the People, and marched with them through the Wilderness, verse 7. to 15. Secondly, That it was he that was among the thousands of Angels in Sinai in the holy place, and by their Ministry promulgated the Law from thence; verse 17. Thirdly, That it was he who was the God and King, whose goings were seen in the Sanctuary, ver. 24. Fourthly, That it was he who was the God of the Temple p. 250at Ierusalem, vers. 29. For all these things are expresly spoken of him that ascended on high, and led captivity captive, and received gifts for men, vers. 18. which the Apostle tells us was Christ.

Thirdly, That it was he also that conducted them through the Wilderness into Canaan, appears from that of St. Paul, 1 Cor. 10.9. Neither let us tempt Christ as some of them, i. e. of the People of Israel in the Wilderness, also tempted, or as some Copies read it, as some of them also tempted him, and were destroyed by Serpents; and although in most Copies him be not expressed, yet in all it is necessarily implied; for if they tempted in the Wilderness, it is certain that they tempted some body, and to understand by that some body any other than Christ, who is the only Person before mentioned, is against all Grammar and reason; against Grammar, which allows no other Accusative to be understood by the Verb than that of some thing or person aforesaid in the same Sentence; against Reason, because if we understand any other Accusative but him or Christ who is the only Person afore-mentioned, we must make the Apostle speak loosely and indeterminately, whereas otherwise it is evident he speaks most strictly and certainly; for there is no word in the Text but only Christ which determines the Accusative that the Verb tempted implies; so that if that doth not determine it, it must be left wholly indeterminate, but if it doth, it must be him or Christ; and to make the holy Oracles speak loosely and vagrantly where they may as well be understood to speak strictly and determinately, is not only impious but unreasonable. p. 251If therefore it was Christ that some of the Jews tempted in the Wilderness, it necessarily follows in the first place, that Christ was with them there, and secondly, that he was that God against whom they spake, Numb. 21.5. which is the place the Apostle here refers to, where it is said, that the People spake against God and against Moses, for which God sent fiery Serpents among them, ver. 6. If therefore Christ was with them in the Wilderness, and was that God against whom they spake in the Wilderness, there is no doubt but that he was that God that led them through it, and brought them into Canaan.

Fourthly, That it was he who dwelt in the Jewish Tabernacle and Temple is evident from Iohn 12.41. These things said Isaias when he saw his glory and spake of him; the occasion of which words is this; at ver. 37. St. Iohn takes notice of the perverse Infidelity of the Iews in not believing in Christ, notwithstanding all the Miracles he had shewn them, ver. 38, 39, 40. which he shews was no more than what the Prophet Isay had long before foretold of them, Isa. 6.9, 10. and then he concludes, ver. 41. These things said Isaiah when he saw his glory and spake of him, where by his glory it is evident the Apostle means Christ's glory, and by speaking of him, speaking of Christ; for so in ver. 37. where the discourse begins, it is plain he means Christ when he tells us, that yet they believed not on him, and in ver. 42. it is as plain that he means him still, when he tells us, that nevertheless among the chief Rulers also many believed in him; and if by him he means Christ, as all agree he doth, both in p. 252ver. 37. and 42. either the four Verses between must be included within a Parenthesis (which we have no reason to imagine, seeing there is …o note of a Parenthesis to be found in any Copy, nor doth the discourse it self require it, which from Verse to Verse runs all along in a close and continued dependence) or by him, must be meant Christ, in ver. 41. also; and if it was Christ's glory which Isaiah saw, and Christ of whom he spake, then it is evident that Christ was the God who inhabited the Temple. For so in Isa. 6.1. which is the place St.Iohn here refers to, Isaiah tells us, that in the year that King Vzziah died he saw the Lord sitting on a Throne high and lifted up, and his Train filled the Temple; if therefore Christ was this Lord, as St. Iohn affirms, it is certain from these words that it was he who sate upon the Throne in the Temple, and had his Train or Retinue of Angels there.

Fifthly and lastly, That Christ also was that Iehovah and divine Lord and King who under the most high Father presided over the Iewish Church, is evident from several places of the New Testament, compared with the Old, from whence they are cited. I shall only instance in two, the first of which is Eph. 5.14. Wherefore he saith, that is the Prophet Isaiah, awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light; which words are a Paraphrastical reference to Isa. 60.1. Arise, shine, for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee; but now unless we suppose Christ to be this Lord or Iehovah, the Prophet is so far from saying here, that Christ shall give thee light, as St. Paul affirms, p. 253that he makes no mention at all of him; either therefore Isaiah says no such thing as, Christ shall give thee light, which is to give the lie to St. Paul, or else the true sense of that saying of Isaiah, The glory of the Lord is risen upon thee, must be, that Christ shall give thee light; which it cannot be, if Christ and that Lord were two distinct persons; but that they are one and the same, is evident from Isa. 44.6. Thus faith Iehovah, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the Lord of Hosts, I am the first, and I am the last, and besides me there is no God; which divine Character of I am the first, and I am the last, he elsewhere gives himself in Chap. 41.4. and Chap. 48.12. of this Prophecy. Now this very Character of the God of Israel Christ assumes to himself, Rev. 1.11. I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last; so again, ver. 17. and Chap. 2.8. and Chap. 22.13. Now how can we, with any reverence to our Saviour, suppose that he would ever have assumed to himself this distinguishing Character of the God of Israel, and that in the very same words, and without ever explaining them into a different sense, had he not been the very same Person? since he could not but foresee that he should hereby endanger the misleading of his Church, and tempting her into a false opinion of his Person. For what man that was not prepossessed with a contrary opinion, would ever have thought that our Saviour did not mean himself to be the God of Israel, when he thus verbatim applies to himself his personal Character without any kind of restriction or explication? Should any man hear a voice from an invisible Person seriously p. 254pronouncing, I am William the Conqueror, (as S. Iohn did this voice from Christ, I am the first and the last) would he not presently conclude either that this Person was the Ghost of that victorious Prince, or that that voice was a designed delusion? Since therefore our Saviour declares, that he is the first and the last, which is the essential Character by which Iehovah the King of Israel describes himself, and doth no where intimate a different sence of this Character as applied to himself, from what it signified as applied to the Iehovah, it necessarily follows, that either he meant not sincerely, or that himself and that Iehovah the King of Israel were the same Person. And accordingly, Zach. 9.9. which all agree is a Prophecy of our Saviour, he is expresly called the King of Israel, Rejoyce greatly, O Daughter of Sion, shout O Daughter of Ierusalem, behold thy King cometh unto thee; the most natural sence of which Phrase thy King, is he that is now thy King, not he that is hereafter to be so; and if then when this Prophecy was delivered, he was King of the Daughter of Zion, or People of Israel, to be sure he was always so; and therefore the Prophet Malachi calls the Temple which was the Palace of the divine King of Israel, the Temple of Christ, Mal. 3.1. Behold I will send my Messenger, i. e. John Baptist, and he shall prepare my way before me, and the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his Temple, even the Angel of the Covenant whom ye delight in, behold he shall come, saith the Lord of Hosts; from whence I infer, first, that this Lord of Hosts, which is the ordinary stile of the God of Israel, was Christ, whose Messenger and p. 255fore-runner Iohn Baptist was, vid. Luke 1.76. And secondly, That the Temple, which was the abode of this Lord of Hosts, was the Temple of Christ; the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his Temple; which cannot be meant of God the Father, because in the next words he is called the Angel of the Covenant, which all agree is Christ; if then the Temple of Ierusalem was the Temple of Christ, and he was that Lord of Hosts that dwelt in it, it necessarily follows, that he was that divine King of Israel who under God the Father governed the Iewish Church. And now having proved at large this fourth Proposition, which is the principal Hinge upon which the whole Argument turns, I proceed,

Fifthly, That after his coming into the World he still retained this his Right and Title of King of Israel in particular, till they finally rejected him, and Apostatized from that Covenant on which his Kingdom is founded. For he did not at all divest himself by his Incarnation, of that Royal Authority he was vested with as he was the Eternal Word and Son of God, hereafter to be incarnate. For this his Royal Authority, as I shewed before, is necessarily implied in his Mediatorship of the New Covenant, of which, as I have also shewed, he was always Mediator without any discontinuance or interruption. So long therefore as the New Covenant continued in force with the Iews in particular, so long he was their Mediatorial King in particular, under God the Father. Now it is certain that the New Covenant continued in force with them so long as they continued to be the Church of God, because p. 256it was the New Covenant that made them so; and it is certain they continued the Church of God many years after the Incarnation of our Saviour, even till such time as by their obstinate rejecting of our Saviour, and incurable Apostasie from that Covenant which made them the Church and People of God, they had finally incensed him to reject them, to break off his Covenant-relation to them, and utterly to dispark and un-Church them. And therefore we find that for several years both our Saviour and his Apostles continued in close Communion with the Iewish Church, frequented their Temple and Synagogues, and joyned with them in all the Solemnities of their Publick Worship; by which they owned them to be the true Church of God, and consequently to be yet in Covenant with him. Since therefore they continued in the New Covenant after Christ's Incarnation, Christ must also continue the Mediator of that Covenant to them, and consequently their Mediatorial King. And hence he is stiled, the King of the Iews in particular, after his Incarnation; for so the Wise-men in their enquiry after him, Where is he that is born King of the Iews? Matt. 2.2. And that he was born King of the Iews, not merely as he was descended from the Loins of David, but by a Title that he had Antecedent to his birth, viz. as he was the Son of God, hereafter to be Incarnate, is evident by that confession of Nathanael, Joh. 1.49. Rabbi thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel; where his being the King of Israel is consequent to his being the Son of God; and so Iohn 12.13. they who attended him in his progress to Ierusalem p. 257salute him with a Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord; which S. Iohn makes the accomplishment of that forementioned Prophecy, Zach. 9.9. Rejoyce greatly, O daughter of Zion — behold thy King cometh unto thee sitting on an Asses Colt, verse 14, 15. And this Title our Saviour assumes to himself in that good confession he made before Pontius Pilate, who asking him, Art thou King of the Iews? He answered him, Sayest thou this of thy self, or did others tell it thee of me? And when Pilate presses him for a more explicite answer, he tells him, My Kingdom is not of this world; as much as if he had said, I know the Jews, mine enemies, have insinuated to thee, that by assuming to my self this Title of King of the Iews, I design to usurp the temporal Dominion of Caesar thy Master; but let not that trouble thee, for though it is most certain that I am King of the Jews, yet my Kingship and Caesar's are of a quite different nature, and do no way clash or interfere with one another; for whereas his Kingdom is Temporal, mine is purely spiritual, and not of this world; and when Pilate insists farther, Art thou a King then? Jesus answers, Thou sayest I am a King, i. e. thou sayest truly so, to this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth, John 18.33, 34, 35, 36, 37.

And as he retained the Title of King of the Jews after his Incarnation, so we frequently find him exercising his Royal Authority among them. For in the first place, he not only authoritatively explained to them those old and eternal Laws of Morality which he delivered to them p. 258from Mount Sinai, and inforced them with new Sanctions and Motives; but he also gave them two new Laws, viz. that of Baptism, and that of the Lord's Supper, to be continued in force to the end of the world. Secondly, He erected a perpetual form of Government and Discipline in his Church, and gave Commission to his Apostles to exercise and administer it, and to derive down their Commission to all succeeding Generations. Thirdly, he actually forgave sins, Matth. 9.2. compared with the sixth, where he doth not only pronounce to one that was sick of the Palsie, Son, thy sins are forgiven thee; but declares that he did it by that power and authority which he had upon earth to forgive sins. All which being acts of Regal power, do sufficiently manifest that, even whilst he was upon Earth, he was vested with Royal Authority, and that by assuming our nature he did not divest himself of his ancient Royalty, but still continued King of the Iews so long as they continued a Church.

Sixthly, That though the main body of the People of Israel rejected Christ, and were thereupon rejected by him, yet there was a Remnant of them that received and acknowledged him for their rightful Lord and King. For so, as S. Paul observes, it is foretold of Isaiah concerning Israel, Though the number of the Children of Israel be as the sand of the Sea, a remnant shall be saved, Rom. 9.27. and accordingly it proved in the event. For though the much greater part of the Jewish Nation obstinately persisted in their Infidelity and Rebellion against the blessed Iesus their King, notwithstanding all those powerful Arts and p. 259Methods he had used to reclaim and save them; yet there was a great number of them that willingly received and loyally adhered to him. For not only the Disciples which he gathered whilst he was upon Earth, but also the first Converts after his Ascension into Heaven, were generally of the Iewish Nation, within which not only his own Personal Ministry was confined, but also the Ministry of his Apostles for some time after his Ascension. For so S. Paul and Barnabas tell the Jews, that it was necessary the Word of God should first have been spoken to them, Acts 13.46. But this Proposition is so manifest from the whole Gospel, that I shall not need to insist any farther upon it.

Seventhly, Therefore that this Remnant still continued the same individual Church or Kingdom of Christ with the former, though very much reformed and improved. For it still remained upon the same basis with the former, as having the self-same Covenant for its Charter, which is the form that Identifies all Societies, and, notwithstanding the perpetual change and renovation of their parts, still continues them the same individual Politick bodies. Since therefore that remnant of Israel, who believed in Christ, continued still in the same Covenant with that whereupon the old Jewish Church was founded, it necessarily follows, that they were not a new or distinct Church, but still remained the same individual sacred society with the old. So that they were the unbelieving Jews that revolted from their old Church, by rejecting the Mediator of that Covenant by which it was formed and p. 260constituted; but as for the believing Jews, who imbraced and acknowledged him, they still continued in it, and so remained the same continued Church, as being still united and incorporated by the same Charter.

But though it was the same continued body with the old Jewish Church, yet was it very much reformed and improved by our blessed Saviour. For, in the first pl…ce, whereas before it was extremely corrupted through the many false glosses and superstitious traditions of their Elders, and like an un…est Garden, was all overgrown with Thorns and Weeds, its Religion being almost dwindled away into Ceremonies, and outward observances, and evaporated into a dead shew and formality; our blessed Saviour repaired its ruines and decays, removed its rubbish, and reformed its disorders, and restored it to its primitive beauty and purity. For the great design of all his Sermons and Parables was to explain the Laws of it into their Genuine sence, and to rescue them from the false Glosses and Comments of the Scribes and Pharisees; to reprehend and expose its hypocrisie and formality, and to refine its Religion from all those corrupt and heterogeneous mixtures with which it was dasht and sophisticated. That Remnant of the Jews therefore who believed in Christ, and submitted to his Doctrine, when all the rest of them finally rejected him, were the same individual continued body with the Old Jewish Church, as purified and reformed from its errors and corruptions. For by submitting to our Saviour's regulations they did not commence into a new Church, but still continued the same body, p. 261only with this difference, that whereas before it was distempered with sundry corrupt humours, now it was throughly purged and recovered.

And as our Saviour restored that Church to its ancient purity, so, secondly, he advanced and improved it to a far more perfect state than it was in even under its primitive Constitution. It is true, as for the Religion of that Church it was for substance the same with that which our Saviour and his Apostles taught; it proposed to them the same Covenant, and the same Mediator, and the very same Doctrines, and Articles concerning this Mediator, to create in them the same belief, and oblige them to the same practice, only with this difference, that whereas it proposed him to their belief as hereafter to be incarnate and sacrificed, to rise and to ascend into heaven; it proposes him to ours as actually incarnate and sacrificed, and as actually risen and ascended; but this is only a circumstantial difference, since that, as to all the purposes of his Mediation, his future Incarnation and Sacrifice, &c. had the same vertue and influence with his actual. But though as to the main the ancient Iewish Religion was the same with ours, yet in respect of clearness, and easiness, and amplitude, there is a vast difference between them. For, first, as to clearness, it is evident that it was much more darkly and obscurely revealed to the ancient Iews than it is to us; for to them it was revealed only either in general Promises, out of which they were fain to argue and deduce particulars; or in temporal Promises, that carried a mystical sence with them, and obscurely implied the spiritual blessings which p. 262the Gospel proposes; or in dark Types and material Figures and Emblems, which were Prophetick Pictures, or, as the Apostle calls them, shadows of good things to come. For thus in that general Promise, In thy Seed shall all the Nations of the Earth be blessed, was included Christ, and all those particular blessings which we receive by and through him; under those temporal promises of deliverance from their enemies, and peace…ble possession of Canaan, was couched their deliverance from sin and hell, and their eternal rest and happiness in heaven; and under their legal Sacrifices, the all-sufficient Sacrifice of the blessed Mediator was exhibited and represented to them; and in a word, under the High Priest's offering the bloud of the Sacrifice in the Holy of Holies, was intimated the Mediator's intercession for them in heaven. Thus both the Promises and Types of the Iewish Religion were all of them obscure revelations of Christianity, which is nothing but Mystical Judaism, or Judaism explained into its spiritual sence and meaning. And accordingly the Apostle makes a Iew, according to the spiritual sence of the Iewish Religion, to be the same with a Christian; for he is not a Iew, saith he, i. e. in a spiritual sence, that is one outwardly, neither is that Circumcision which is outward in the flesh, but he is a Iew who is one inwardly, i. e. who is a Jew according to the inward and spiritual sence of Judaism; and Circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit and not in the Letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God, Rom. 2.28, 29. and if the spiritual Iew be a Christian, then the spiritual Iudaism must be Christianity. p. 263But though this obscure revelation of Christianity was sufficient to enable men, that sincerely attended to it, to grope out their way to eternal happiness; yet it is impossible it should ever give them, without some farther revelation, a distinct and explicite understanding of it. In general they understood that there was a rich vein of spiritual sence running all through the Letter of their Law; that there were glorious mysteries wrapt up within those weak and beggarly elements, like precious Diamonds under a rough coat. For so not only the Author to the Hebrews, but also Philo the Jew in his Allegories of the Law, and almost in all his other Writings, makes the Rites and Ceremonies of the Jewish Religion to be Types and Figures of Divine and Moral truths; and particularly the High Priest and his Vestments to be a figure of the eternal Word and his perfections. And as they understood this in general, so from sundry passages in the book of the Psalms it is apparent that the good Jews had a prospect beyond the outside and letter of their Law, even into the Mystical sence and meaning of it; and that through its dark shadows they saw a great deal of the substance and reality of the Gospel. Hence David observes in Psal. 25.14. that the secret, i. e. mystery, of the Lord is with them that fear him, and he shall shew them his Covenant; which implies that there was something of a Cabala of the spiritual sence of the Law among the true Israelites, by which they were instructed a great deal farther than the bare Letter and outside of it; especially considering that Prayer of David, Psalm 119.18. Open thou mine p. 264eyes that I may behold wondrous things out of thy Law, which is a plain argument, that under the literal s…nce of that Law which was plain and obvious, and had no…hing of depth or mystery, he saw a spiritual and mystical sence, in which some very wonderful truths were included. For if there had b…en no more in it than the literal meaning, it is not to be im…gined he would have prayed as he doth, ver. 19. Hide not thy Commandments from me; and ver. 27 Make me to understand the way of thy Precepts, so shall I talk of thy wondrous works; which plainly sh…ws that there were mysteries co…hed under the Letter of the Law, which were both wonderful in themselves, and very difficult to be understand; and accordingly, ver. 69. he tells us, that he had seen an end of all perfections, but that God's Commandments were exceeding broad, which shews that he had discovered something in that Law beyond the literal sence of it (which was far from being exceeding broad) even a vast Mine of mystical sence, whose bottom he was not able to reach. Now this mystical sence, as hath been shewed, was Christianity, which under that dispensation of it was so overcast with clouds and darkness, that in all probability the most pious and inquisitive minds had but very imperfect and confus… …pp…ehensions of it.

But when our Saviour came into the World he unveiled the Jewish Religion, and decyphered all …hose mystical Characters wherein its spiritual s…ce was expressed; and what he had revealed before only in obscure generals, and mysterious types ▪ he now delived to the world in plain and explicite Articles of Faith. And having unriddled p. 265all those Types and Shadows, and turned them inside outwards, and revealed their hidden sence to the world in plain and naked Propositions, he utterly repealed and abrogated them as things of no farther use; those sacred truths which they contained, and darkly intimated, being now made manifest, and set forth to open view in a far more clear and glorious light. For the proper use and design of all those Types was to teach the Gospel; so the Apostle, the Law was our School-master to bring us unto Christ, Gal. 3.24. but it is evident they were designed to teach it but darkly and mysteriously. For the Iews being bred among the Aegyptians, who were wont to express their d…vine and moral Doctrines by sensible Images or Hieroglyphicks, God in compliance therewith (the Jews being infinitely fond of the manners of Aegypt) thought it meet at first to express the Gospel to them in the same typical manner, i. e. to represent the whole method and Oeconomy of it in visible signs and figures, which he intended only for a rude draught of the Gospel, which he purposed afterwards to draw to the life, and express more clearly and exactly. When therefore our Saviour had fully revealed to the World the sence and meaning of those Types, and expressed what they did so mysteriously signifie in plain and clear Propositions, they from thenceforth became altogether useless, and for that reason were repealed, and utterly expunged out of the Rubrick of divine Worship. So that now the Gospel which hitherto ran under ground in a dark and mysterious Channel, broke forth into a visible stream from underneath that surface of Types p. 266and Shadows which had hitherto covered and in a great measure concealed it from the sight and view of the world. And therefore we need no longer grope after it among Shadows and Vmbrages, as the good Jews were fain to do under the Mosaick Dispensation, those Doctrines of it which before were all Mystery and overcast with Types and Shadows, being now brought forth from behind the Curtain into open view, and presented barefaced to our understandings in a most plain, and easie, and familiar sense. Since therefore the Types of the Law, and Iesus Christ taught the same Religion, and only he taught more plainly and clearly what they taught more darkly and mysteriously, it hence necessarily follows, that those believing Jews who received and acknowledged Christ, espoused no new Religion, but still adhered to that good old Religion which the significant Rites and Ceremonies of their Law had all along preached to them; and that it was only the unbelieving Jews who rejected Christ's Doctrine, that were the true Apostates from the ancient Judaism, which preached and exhibited to them all those holy mysteries of which the Religion of our Saviour is composed; but as for those of them who believed in Jesus, they continued stedfast in the mystick and spiritual sense of their ancient Religion, and though they forsook their old School-master, the Law, under which they had been trained and educated, yet still they retained their old Lesson. For the Doctrine of Iesus was the standing Doctrine of their Legal Types, which they taught darkly and obscurely, but he most clearly and distinctly; and therefore though p. 267those believing Jews still continued in the same Doctrine, yet they had very good reason to change their Teacher, and from being the Disciples of the Law to become the Disciples of Iesus, under whose instruction they were sure to improve far beyond what they had hitherto done under their old Master. Since therefore Christianity is nothing but the ancient Judaism explained and unriddled, it hence necessarily follows, that the believing Jews, by embracing it, did not commence a new Church distinct from the ancient Jewish one, but were the same Church, still continued and improved; the same Church, because founded on the same Religion; but the same Church improved, because enlightened with a far more distinct and explicite knowledge of that Religion.

And as our Saviour did very much improve the Religion of the Jewish Church in respect of clearness and perspicuity, so he did also in respect of easiness. For besides those many Rites and Ceremonies which the Law of Moses superadded to it, as Types and Shadows of the Gospel, there were sundry others superadded to it by the same Law, partly in conformity to the more innocent Rites of the Aegyptians, among whom the Jews were educated, and of whose Rites and Manners they were pertinaciously fond; and partly in opposition to their Magical and Idolatrous ones, vid. Vol. 1. p. 45, 46. For the Primitive Jewish Religion was that which the Patriarchs and their Posterity professed and practised before the giving of the Law, and to which the Ceremonial Law was but a superaddition; but by reason of the p. 268vast number of Rites and Ceremonies which this Law contained (which yet considering their state and temper was very necessary for them) their Religion was rendered exceeding cumbersom and grievous to them; and therefore the Apostle justly calls it a yoke which neither they nor their fore-fathers were able to bear, Acts 15.10. But our Saviour when he came into the World, who was the substance and accomplishment of all those Ceremonial Types and Prophetick Pictures, unloaded it of all those burthensom appendages, and thereby restored it to that ancient ease and liberty in which it was before that yoke of bondage was imposed on it: nay, and not only so, but also render'd it more easie than ever, for whereas before the Law it had annexed to it that painful Rite of Circumcision, which was the Primitive Seal of that Religion or Covenant, our blessed Saviour exchanged it for a much gentler and easier, viz. that of Baptism. For whereas Circumcision was not only an infamous Rite among the greatest part of the Gentile World, and upon that account unfit to be the sign of initiation into the Church of Christ, which was now to be enlarged and propagated through the World; but also a bloudy and painful one, and upon that account more apt to affright men from, than to ini…iate them into his Church; Baptism was a Rite that both Jews and Gentiles reverenced, and that is very easie and practicable in its own nature. So that whereas the ancient Judaism was rendered a yoke of bondage (as the Apostle calls it, Gal. 5.10.) through those numerous Rites and Ceremonies that were superinduced upon it, our Saviour disburthened p. 269it of them all, and thereby rendered it an easie yoke, as he himself calls it, Matt. 11.30. Since therefore Christianity, for the main, is nothing but the ancient Judaism released from the bondage of the Ceremonial Law, and restored to its Primitive easiness and freedom, it hence follows, that by embracing Christ and his Doctrine the believing Jews did not turn to a new Religion, nor consequently constitute a new Church, but still continued in their Old Religion, which our Saviour only bettered and improved, and rendered far more easie and practicable.

Thirdly and lastly, Our Saviour very much improved the Jewish Church and Religion in respect of the extent and Amplitude of it. It is true, the Gentiles who embraced the Jewish Religion were always allowed admission into the Jewish Church. For so at first not only Abraham himself and his Children, but his Servants also were admitted into Covenant with God, and thereby made his Church and People. And in the Reigns of David and Solomon, as Mr. Selden de Iure l. 2. cap. 2. observes, there were vast numbers of Converts to the Jewish Church out of all the Neighbouring Nations; and in Ahasuerus's Reign many of the People of the Land, of Media and Persia, became Iews, Esther 8.17. and afterwards in Hyrcanus's Reign the whole Nation of the Idumeans embraced the Jewish Religion; all which, and many more, as the true Children of Abraham's faith, were by Circumcision initiated into the Covenant God made with him and his Posterity, and thereby became Co-members with them of the same Corporation, and Coheirs to the same Promises. p. 270But though the Gate of the Jewish Church was never shut against the Gentiles, yet, as I shewed before, there were sundry of the Rites of that Church instituted on purpose to divide and separate the Jews from the Gentiles, to create a distance and mutual strangeness between them, that thereby the Jews might be preserved and secured from mingling with the Gentile Idolatries. Now by these distinguishing Rites, which begat an inveter…te mutual prejudice between the Jews and Gentiles, the Jewish Church was very much narrowed and contracted. For in the first place th…se distinguishing Rites by prejudicing the Iews against the Gentiles restrained them from all free converse and communication with them, and thereby from propagating their Religion among them; and secondly, by prejudicing the Gentiles against the Iews, they also prejudiced them against the Jewish Religion, and rendered their minds extremely averse to the entertainment of it. Thus as these Ceremonious singularities of the Jewish Church were to the Iews great preservatives against the Idolatries of the Gentiles, so to the Gentiles they were very great hinderances of their conversion to the Religion of the Jews. And therefore our Saviour, in order to his design of propagating Christianity among the Gentiles, which is the true Spirit and Mystery of Iudaism, found it necessary to remove from it these offensive Rites, which lay as so many stumbling blocks in the way to the conversion of the Gentiles to it, and so by pulling down this middle Wall of partition between the Jews and Gentiles, and abolishing this enmity of Ordinances which created p. 271such a vast distance between them, he opened and prepared the way to the conversion of the Gentiles, and took a most prudent and effectual course to make peace between them and the Jews, and to reconcile them both into one body in the Cross, and and hereby to extend and enlarge the Church into an universal Corporation.

In short therefore Christianity being nothing else but only Judaism separated from all those Appendages of it, which rendered it obscure, and burthensom, and narrow, it hence follows that that Remnant of Jews who received and embraced it, were so far from renouncing their old Religion, that they still admitted, and professed, and adhered to it under its greatest advantages and improvements; that they renounced nothing of it but only its comparative defects, and did only admit of these new reformations of it, by which our Saviour advanced it to its utmost lustre and perfection, and rendered it infinitely more clear, and easie, and extensive; and since it was their old Religion thus reformed and improved that they still embraced and continued in, upon their turning Christians, it necessarily follows, that they did not become a new, distinct Church, but were only a continued succession of the Old one. And hence it is that Christians in the New Testament are sometimes called Iews, Rev. 2.9. i. e. reformed Jews, or, which is the same, true Christians; and sometimes the Israel of God, Gal. 6.16. and sometimes the Children of Abraham, Gal. 3.7. and sometimes a chosen generation, a Royal Priesthood, an holy Nation, a peculiar people, which is the proper Character of the Iews, because by their Faith p. 272and Religion, which is nothing but the true spiritual and mystick Judaism, they were Iews and Israelites, and the Children of Abraham, though they were not all so according to the Flesh, as the Apostle distinguishes, 1 Cor. 10.18. and hence also it is that the Christian Church is called the new Ierusalem, Rev. 3.12. because it is nothing but the Old Ierusalem or Jewish Church renewed and enlarged.

Eighthly and lastly, That to this individual Church or Kingdom of Christ, thus reformed and improved, was superadded all those Gentiles that were afterwards converted to Christianity. When the main body of the Jews had rejected our Saviour, his Kingdom was reduced to a very narrow compass, and consisted only of one single Congregation of Christians in Ierusalem, which, through the blessing of God upon the indefatigable industry of his Apostles and Disciples, was by degrees spread and dilated over all the World. For this single Congregation was the Primitive root out of which the vast stock of the Catholick Church sprung, which hath since branch'd forth it self into particular Churches to all the ends of the Earth; for it is of this Church that the Apostle speaks, Acts 2.47. when he tells us, that the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved. So that all that were converted to the faith of Christ were but so many additions to this Primitive Church, so many living stones incorporated into this spiritual building, which by the industry of its builders did soon encrease and multiply into several other Congregations; p. 273and these Congregations, though they were several, yet were not separate or independent, but continued all of them united to the first, as Homogeneous parts growing out of the same body, or distinct Apartments superadded to the same building. So that the Christian Church began in one Congregation, and by degrees enlarged it self, like a fruitful stock, by branching forth it self into other Congregations in a continued unity with its own body, which for the convenience of Worship and Discipline were afterwards formed into several (though not separate) particular Churches under the conduct of their particular Pastors and Governours. And thus all the particular Churches that are now in the World are only so many Lines drawn from this Primitive Centre, and united in it; and it is upon this account particularly that they all of them constitute but one Catholick Church, because they all grew out of one, and so are but comparts of the same body, and branches of the same root, and are only that one Primitive Church multiplied into several Churches living in the same Catholick Communion and Vnity. And accordingly the Gentile Converts are said to be grafted into the Jewish Church, which the Apostle calls the good Olive tree in Rom. 11.17, 18 For if some of the branches, that is, the unbelieving Jews, be broken off, i. e. rejected from being any more the Church and People of God, and thou being a wild Olive Tree, growing in the wild common of the World without the Pale and Inclosure of God's Church, wert grafted in among them, i. e. incorporated with the believing Jews, and made a member of the body of their Church, and with p. 274them partakest of the root and fatness of the Olive Tree, i. e. communicatest with them in all the blessings of God's Promise to Abraham, which is the foundation of their Church, boast not against the branches, but if thou boast, consider thou bearest not the root, but the root thee, i. e. the Jewish Church grew not out of thee, but thou out of that; she is no branch of thee, but thou of her, as being ingrafted into her Stock, and added to her Communion. By which it is evident that the converted Gentiles were all but so many superadditions to that Primitive Church of Ierusalem, which was the only remainder of the ancient Jewish Church, and which from one single Congregation did by degrees increase and multiply it self into an infinite number of particular Churches in Vnion with it self from one end of the World to the other.

And this, in short, is the Progress of Christ's Kingdom, which from Adam to Abraham consisted of all such as were true Worshippers of God of whatsoever Kindred or Nation; from Abraham to Jesus Christ principally of the Iewish Nation; and when the greatest part of that Nation had revolted from Christ, and renounced their relation to him, his Kingdom extended no farther than to the small Remnant of the Jews that adhered to him, who made up but one single Congregation, which Congregation by the diligence of its Ministers, and the blessing of God increased and propagated from it self vast numbers of other Congregations, and these were formed into particular Churches, which like so many conquered Provinces were still united to that Primitive Kingdom, p. 275till at last by a continued accession of new Conquests it was spread and enlarged into an universal Empire.