4

Hath he at any time shut up the progress of revelation? Hath he not always kept the church in expectation of new revelations of his mind and will? did he ever declare that he would add no more unto what he had commanded, or make no alteration in what he had instituted? What he had revealed was to be observed, Deut. xxvii. 29. and when he had revealed it: but until he declare that he will add no more, it is folly to account what is already done, absolutely complete and immutable. Therefore Moses, when he had finished all his work in the Lord's house, tells the church, that God would raise up another prophet like unto him; that is, who should reveal new laws and institutions as he had done, whom they were to hear and obey on the penalty of utter extermination, Deut. xviii. 18.

And this discovers the obstinacy of the modern Jews, who from the days of Maimonides, who died about the year of our Lord 1104, have made it one of the fundamental articles of their religion, which they have inserted in their prayer-books, that the law of Moses is never to be changed, and that God will never give them any other law, or rule of worship. And as they further ground that article in Ezrim Vearba, printed in the end of Bomberg's Bibles, they affirm, that nothing can be added unto it, nothing taken away from it, and that no alteration in its obligation can be admitted;' which is directly contrary, both to the truth and to the confession of all their predecessors, who looked for the Messiah, as we shall afterwards declare.'

In opposition to this gradual revelation of the mind of God under the Old Testament, the apostle intimates, that now by Jesus the Messiah, the Lord hath at once begun and finished the whole revelation of his will, according to their own hopes and expectation. So, Jude 3. the faith was once delivered unto the saints:" not in one day, not in one sermon, or by one person, but at one season, or under one dispensation, comprising all the time from the entrance of the Lord Christ upon his ministry, and the closing of the Canon of Scripture, which period was now at hand. This season being once past and finished, no new revelation is to be expected to the end of the world. Nothing shall be added unto, nor altered in the worship of God any more. God will not do it; men that attempt it, do it on the price of their souls.

2. God spake in the prophets, orgonas, after divers sorts or manners. Now this respects either the various ways of God's revealing himself to the prophets, by dreams, visions, inspirations, voices, angels, every way with an equal evidence of their being from God; or the ways of his dealing with the fathers by the prophets, by promises, threats, gradual discoveries of his will, special messages and prophecies, public sermons

and the like. The latter, or the various ways of the prophets delivering their messages to the people from God, is principally intended, though the former be not excluded, it being that, from whence this latter variety did principally arise and flow.

In opposition hereunto, the apostle intimates, that the revelation of God and his will by Christ was accomplished Movidas, in one only way and manner, by his preaching the gospel who was anointed with the Spirit without measure.

The last difference, or instance in the comparison, insisted on by the apostle is, that of old God spake in the prophets, but now in the Son, s rois wentais; for dia say most expositors, in for ly, δια των προφητων; as Luke i. 70. δια στοματος των άγιων

Prov, by the mouth of the holy prophets. But here, answers the Hebrew 2 Num. xii. God spake in Moses. The certainty of the revelation and presence of God with his word, is intimated in the expression. So the word of the Lord was

, in the hand of this or that prophet. They were but instruments to give out, what they had received from God.

Now these prophets in whom God spake of old, were all those who were divinely inspired and sent to reveal his will and mind, as to the duty of the church, or any special concernment of his providence in the rule and government thereof, whether they declared the inspirations they had, or revelations they received, by word of mouth, or by writing. The modern Jews make a distinction between the gift of prophecy and the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, following Maimonides in his More Nebuchim, part. ii. cap. 32. His opinion, which he calls the opinion or sentence of the law, about prophecy in general, is the same with that of the Gentile philosophers, as he professeth. In one thing only he differs from them; namely, that prophecy doth not so necessarily follow after due preparation, as that a man cannot but prophesy who is rightly prepared. But the gift of prophecy, he asserts wholly to depend on the temperature of the brain, natural and moral exercises for the preparing and raising of the imagination, upon which divine visions will succeed; a brain-sick imagination, confounding divine revelation with fanatical distempers. But in the eleven degrees of prophecy which he assigns, and attempts to prove by instances out of Scripture, he placeth that of inspiration by the Holy Ghost in the last and lowest place. And therefore by the late masters is the book of Daniel cast into this latter sort, though eminently prophetical, because they are so galled with his predictions and calculations; no other reason of that disposition readily occurs. And this is the ground of their disposition of the books of the Scripture, into n, the law, or five books of Moses, given in the highest way and degree of prophecy;

prophets, first (or אחרונים and שונים ,of two sorts נבואים

,רוה הקדוש or כתובים books historical) and the latter ; and

books written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Of the ground of which distinction see Kimchi in his preface to the Psalms. Their mistake lies in this, that prophecy consists principally in, and is distinguished into several degrees, by the manner of revelation; as by dreams, visions, appearances of angels or men, and the like. But as ', a prophet, and 7, prophecy, are of a larger signification than that pretended, as appears from Num. xi. 29. 1 Sam. x. 5. 1 Chron. xxv. 1-3.; so that which made any revelation to be prophecy in that sense, as to be an infallible rule for the guidance of the church, was not the means of communicating it to the prophets, but that inspiration of the Holy Ghost which implanted in their minds, and gave forth by their tongues or pens, that which God would utter in them, and by them, 2 Pet. i. 20, 21.

In answer unto this speaking of God in the prophets, it is asserted, that in the revelation of the gospel, God spake in his Son,. This is the main hinge on which all the arguments of the apostle in the whole epistle do turn; this bears the stress of all the inferences afterwards by him insisted on. And therefore having mentioned it, he proceeds immediately unto that description of him, which gives evidence to all that he draws from this consideration. Now because no one argument of the apostle can be understood, unless this be rightly stated, we must of necessity insist somewhat largely upon it; and unto what we principally intend, some previous observations must be premised.

1. I take it at present for granted, that the Son of God appeared unto the prophets under the Old Testament. Whether ever he spake unto them immediately, or only by the ministry of angels, is not so certain. It is also granted, that there was in vision sometimes signs or representations of the person of the Father, as Dan. vii. But that the Son of God did chiefly appear to the fathers under the Old Testament, is acknowledged by the ancients, and is evident in Scripture: see Zech. ii. 8-11. And he it was who is called the angel, Exod. xxiii. 20, 21. The reason that is pleaded by some, that the Son of God was not the angel there mentioned, namely, because the apostle says, that "To none of the angels was it said at any time, Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee," which could not be affirmed, if the Son of God were that angel, is not of any force. For notwithstanding this assertion, yet both the ancient Jews and Christians generally grant, that it is the Messiah that is called the angel of the covenant, Mal. iii. 1. though the modern Jews foolishly apply that name to Elias, whom they fancy to be present at circumcision, which they take to be the covenant; a privilege, as they say, granted him up

6

on his complaint, that the children of Israel had forsaken the covenant, 1 Kings xix. 14. that is, as they suppose, neglected circumcision. The apostle therefore speaks of those who were angels by nature, and no more, and not of him who being Jehovah the Son, was sent of the Father, and is therefore called his angel or messenger, being so only by office. And this appearance of the Son of God, though not well understanding what they say, is acknowledged by sundry of the Post-talmudical Rabbins. To this purpose very considerable are the words of Moses Gerundensis, on Exod. xxiii. Iste Angelus si rem ipsam dicamus, est Angelus Redemptor, de quo scriptum est, quoniam nomen meum in ipso est. Ille inquam Angelus qui ad Jacob dicebat, Ego Deus Bethel. Ille de quo dictum est, et vocabat Mosen Deus de rubo. Vocatur autem Angelus quia mundum gubernat. Scriptum est enim eduxit nos ex Egypto. Præterea scriptum est, et Angelus faciei salvos fecit eos. Nimirum ille Angelus qui est Dei facies; de quo dictum est, facies mea præibit et efficiam ut quiescas; denique ille Angelus est de quo vates, subito veniet ad templum suum Dominus quem vos quæritis, Angelus fæderis quem cupitis. The angel, if we speak exactly, is the angel the Redeemer, of whom it is written, my name is in him; that angel which said unto Jacob, I am the God of Bethel. He of whom it is said, God called unto Moses out of the bush. And he is called the angel, because he governeth the world. For it is written, "Jehovah brought us out of Egypt;" and elsewhere, "He sent his angel, and brought us out of Egypt." And again, it is written," And the angel of his presence (face) saved them; namely, the angel which is the presence (face) of God; of whom it is said, my presence (face) shall go before thee, and I will cause thee to rest:" lastly, that angel of whom the prophet speaks, the Lord whom you seek shall suddenly come to his temple, the angel of the covenant whom you desire.' To the same purpose speaks the same author on Exod. xxxiii. 14. "My presence shall go before thee;" Animadverte attente quid ista sibi velint. Moses enim et Israelitæ semper optaverunt Angelum primum; cæterum, quis ille esset vere intelligere non potuerunt. Neque enim ab aliis percipiebant, neque prophetica_notione satis assequebantur. Atqui facies Dei ipsum significat DeumAnd again, Facies mea præcedet, hoc est, Angelus fœderis quem vos cupitis. Observe diligently what is the meaning of these words; for Moses and the Israelites always desired the principal angel, but who he was they could not perfectly understand: for they could neither learn it of others, nor attain it by prophecy, but the presence of God is God himself. "My presence (face) shall go before thee;" that is, the angel of the covenant whom ye desire.' Thus he: to which purpose others also of them do speak; though how to reconcile these things

to their unbelief in denying the personality of the Son of God they know not. This was the angel whose 17, Moses prayed for on Joseph, Deut. xxxiii. 16. and whom Jacob made to be the same with the " God that fed him all his days," Gen. xlviii. 15, 16. whereof we have treated largely before. The Son of God having from the foundation of the world undertaken the care and salvation of the church, he it was who immediately dealt with it in things which concerned its instruction and edification. Neither doth this hinder but that God the Father may be, or that in this place he is asserted to be, the fountain of all divine revelation.

2. There is a difference between the Son of God revealing the will of God in his divine person to the prophets, of which we have spoken, and the Son of God as incarnate, revealing the will of God immediately to the church. This is the difference here insisted on by the apostle. Under the Old Testament the Son of God in his divine person, instructed the prophets in the will of God, and gave them that spirit on whose divine inspiration their infallibility did depend, 1 Pet. i. 11. but now in the revelation of the gospel, taking his own humanity, or our nature hypostatically united unto him, in the room of all the internunciï or prophetical messengers he had made use of, he taught it immediately himself.

There lies a seeming exception unto this distinction in the giving of the law; for as we affirm, that it was the Son by whom the law was given, so in his so doing he spake immediately to the whole church, Exod. xx. 22. The Lord said, "I have talked with you from heaven." The Jews say, that the people understood not one word of what was spoken, but only heard a voice, and saw the terrible appearances of the majesty of God, as ver. 18.; for immediately upon that sight, they removed and stood afar off; and the matter is left doubtful in the repetition of the story, Deut. v. 4. It is said indeed, " The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount;" but yet neither do these words fully prove that they understood what was spoken, and as it was spoken, but only that they clearly discovered the presence of God delivering the law: for so are those words expounded in ver. 5. "I stood," saith Moses, "between the Lord and you at that time, to shew you the word of the Lord, for you were afraid by reason of the fire, and went not up into the mount;" that is, you understood not the words of the law, but as I declared them unto you; and it being so, though the person of the Son caused the words to be heard, yet he spake not immediately to the whole church but by Moses. But secondly, we shall afterwards shew, that all the voices then heard by Moses or the people, were formed in the air by the ministry of angels, so that they heard not the immediate voice