{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_62149/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_62149","id":"gutenberg_62149","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/62149","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Religion/Spirituality","Presbyterian Church -- Doctrines","Presbyterianism","Theology, Doctrinal","Westminster Assembly (1643-1652). Larger catechism"],"text":"A Body of Divinity\n\n\n\n\n A BODY OF DIVINITY:\n\n WHEREIN THE DOCTRINES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION ARE EXPLAINED AND\n DEFENDED.\n\n BEING THE SUBSTANCE OF SEVERAL LECTURES ON THE ASSEMBLY\u2019S LARGER\n CATECHISM.\n\n BY THOMAS RIDGLEY, D. D.\n\n WITH NOTES, ORIGINAL AND SELECTED,\n BY JAMES P. WILSON, D. D.\n\n IN FOUR VOLUMES.\n\n _VOL. II._\n\n FIRST AMERICAN, FROM THE THIRD EUROPEAN EDITION.\n\n PHILADELPHIA:\n\n PRINTED BY AND FOR WILLIAM. W. WOODWARD, CORNER OF CHESNUT AND SOUTH\n SECOND STREETS.\n\n 1815.\n\n\n\n\n THE CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME.\n\n\nQUEST. XIV, XV. Of the work of Creation.\n\n\n_CREATION, the word explained_ _Page_ 5\n\n _It was not from eternity_ 7\n\n _This proved from the invention of things_ 13\n\n _By the power and for the glory of God_ 14\n\n _Performed in six days_ 16\n\n _Each day\u2019s work_ 19\n\n _Of instantaneous production_ 17\n\n_The condition and season of the year in which things were created_ 24\n\n_Antiquity of nations vainly boasted of_ 10\n\n\nQUEST. XVI. Of Angels.\n\n\n_Of their existence_ 26\n\n _Nature and properties_ 28\n\n _Work and employment_ 30\n\n _Worship. Harmony therein, but no Hierarchy_ 31\n\n_How they impart their_ Ideas _to one another_ 33\n\n\nQUEST. XVII. Of the creation of Man.\n\n\n_Man was created male and female_ 34\n\n _Excellency of his make_ 40\n\n _Origin of the soul_, in a note 41\n\n _Of God\u2019s image in man_ 44\n\n _No men before_ Adam 37\n\n\nQUEST. XVIII. Of Providence.\n\n\n_Providence governs all creatures_ 47\n\n _And all their actions_ _ibid_\n\n _His concern for man_ 51\n\n _How conversant about evil actions_ 52\n\n _Sin over-ruled for God\u2019s glory, and his people\u2019s good_ 53\n\n _Other things over-ruled by providence_ 59\n\n _Objections against providence answered_ 60\n\n _Unequal distributions of providence vindicated_ 61\n\n\nQUEST. XIX. Of God\u2019s providence towards the angels.\n\n\n_How it was conversant about the fall of apostate angels_ 63\n\n _These fell all at once_ 64\n\n_Some angels confirmed in holiness and happiness_ 66\n\n _Ministry of angels_ 68\n\n\nQUEST. XX. Of God\u2019s providence towards man in innocency.\n\n\n_Of Paradise_ 70\n\n _Man\u2019s secular employment and food therein_ 72\n\n _His dominion over the creatures_ 74\n\n _His spiritual concerns were under the direction of providence_ 75\n\n _Sabbath instituted and the covenant established_ 76\n\n _Representation_, in a note 77\n\n_Difference between a law and a covenant_ 78\n\nAdam _was under a covenant_ 82\n\n _Objections answered_ 83\n\n _Conditions of that covenant_ 84\n\n _Tree of life a seal of it_ 86\n\n _Of the tree of knowledge_ 90\n\n\nQUEST. XXI. Of the fall of man.\n\n\n_Our first parents were endued with freedom of will_ 93\n\n _Were left thereunto_ 94\n\n _How they were tempted_ 96\n\n _Satan\u2019s subtilty in the temptation_ 99\n\n _Eve represented by Adam_, in a note 103\n\n _Aggravations of their sin_ 105\n\n _Its immediate consequences_ 104\n\n\nQUEST. XXII. All mankind fell in _Adam_.\n\n\nAdam _a federal head_ 109\n\n _All fell in him, except Christ_ 112\n\n _His sin imputed to his posterity_ 113\n\n _Penal evils which followed_ 111\n\n_Appointment of his headship vindicated_ 114\n\n\nQUEST. XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI. Of Sin.\n\n\n_Original sin_ 118\n\n _Actual transgressions proceed from it_ 120\n\n _Conveyed by natural generation_ 132\n\n_Original righteousness lost_ 121\n\n _Man\u2019s nature inclined to sin_ 123\n\n_Propensity to sin not put into our nature by God_ 124\n\n _Not harmless even in childhood_ 125\n\n_Origin of moral evil_ 127\n\n _The notion of two first causes exploded_ _ibid_\n\n_Pre-existence of souls a mere fancy_ 126\n\n_Corruption of nature not by the soul\u2019s traduction_ 128\n\n _Not from imitation_ _ibid_\n\n _Necessarily ensues on the privation of original righteousness_\n 131\n\n\nQUEST. XXVII. Of man\u2019s misery by the Fall.\n\n\n_Various opinions about the salvation of infants_ 138\n\n_Punishment of original sin increased by actual_ 141\n\n _Sinners liable to God\u2019s wrath and curse_ 143\n\n _Slaves to Satan_ 144\n\n _Sin exists in the intentions_, in a note 145\n\n\nQUEST. XXVIII, XXIX. Of the punishment of sin in both worlds.\n\n\n_Of judicial blindness of mind_ 146\n\n _Hardness of heart_ 149\n\n _Sins that lead to it_ 150\n\n _Difference between the hardness found in believers and\n judicial_ 152\n\n_Of strong delusions_ 147\n\n _A reprobate sense_ 152\n\n _Vile affections_ 153\n\n _Horror of conscience. When judicial_ 154\n\n_Punishment of sin in outward things_ 155\n\n _In the world to come_ 158\n\n _This will be perpetual_, in a note 159, 160\n\n\nQUEST. XXX. Of man\u2019s Recovery.\n\n\n_God\u2019s love the only moving cause of it_ 162\n\n _Covenant of grace. Its various periods_ 166\n\n _Opposed to that of innocency_ 165\n\n\nQUEST. XXXI. The covenant of grace made with Christ, and, in him, with\nthe elect.\n\n\nCovenant, _scriptural sense of the word_ 168\n\n _Between the Father and Son, explained_ 171\n\n _And proved_ 173\n\n _Of redemption distinguished by some from the covenant of grace_\n 178\n\n_God\u2019s covenant differs from human_ 170\n\n _How he covenants with man_ 181\n\n _How man covenants with him_ 183\n\n\nQUEST. XXXII. Of the grace manifested in the second covenant.\n\n\n_Conditions of a covenant, how understood_ 190\n\n _Faith is a duty_, in a note 193\n\n _Meritorious performed by Christ_ 192\n\n _Conditional promises uncertain_ 191\n\n_Interest in Christ, what meant by it_ 189\n\n_Grace glorified, in ordaining, promising, and working faith_ 197\n\n _Other graces promised and connected with salvation_ 195\n\n\nQUEST. XXXIII, XXXIV, XXXV. Of the various dispensations of the covenant\nof grace.\n\n\n_Christ revealed of old by promises and prophecies_ 199\n\n_Ceremonial law typified Christ and the gospel_ 201\n\n_Types. Cautions about them_ 203\n\n _Rules how to judge of them_ 205\n\n _How the_ Jews _knew their meaning_ 207\n\n_Cocceius\u2019s sentiments about the bondage and darkness of that\ndispensation_ 208\n\n_Gospel-dispensation, when it began_ 212\n\n _How it excels the Legal_ 213\n\n\nQUEST. XXXVI, XXXVII. Of the Mediator of the covenant of Grace.\n\n\n_Saints and angels no Mediators_ 218\n\n_Christ the only Mediator_ 217\n\n _Two distinct natures in Christ, but not two Persons_ 222\n\n _His human nature was united to his Person_ 220\n\n _It shall continue so for ever_ 234\n\n _How formed like ours. How not_ 227\n\n _It was formed of the Virgin_ 229\n\n _His body was truly human_ 224\n\n _His soul distinct from his deity_ 226\n\n _He was expected by the_ Jews 231\n\n _Born in the fulness of time_ 233\n\n _What meant thereby_ 233\n\n\nQUEST. XXXVIII, XXXIX, XL. Of the necessity of the Mediator\u2019s having two\nnatures.\n\n\n_Why he should be God_ 235\n\n_Why man_ 238\n\n_Why both God and man_ 242\n\n\nQUEST. XLI, XLII. Of the Mediator\u2019s name and offices.\n\n\n_Why he was called Jesus_ 244\n\n_Why he was called Christ_ 245\n\n_His offices distinguished, but not divided_ 252\n\n _He was set apart and authorized to execute them_ 248\n\n _He was fitly qualified for them_ 249\n\n\nQUEST. XLIII. Of Christ\u2019s prophetical office.\n\n\n_He reveals the will of God_ 253\n\n _He was qualified for it_ 254\n\n _He does it in various ages_ 257\n\n _To whom and how he does it_ 255\n\n\nQUEST. XLIV. Of Christ\u2019s priestly office.\n\n\n_Priesthood of Christ and_ Aaron _compared_ 280\n\n _Typified by_ Melchisedek 264\n\n _Various opinions who_ Melchisedek _was_ 265\n\n _Proved that he was Christ_ (qu\u00e6re tamen) 267\n\n _Objections answered_ 270\n\n_Satisfaction demanded for sin, of what value and kind_ 275\n\n _Of Christ was necessary_ 273\n\n _His active obedience a part of it_ 283\n\n _Least degree of his sufferings not sufficient for it_ 281\n\n _No redemption without price_ 286\n\n_Death of Christ a ransom_ 290\n\n _Confirmation of his doctrine not its principal end_ 293\n\n_Christ died in our stead_ 290\n\n _Objections answered_ _ibid_\n\n _Modern opinions on the atonement_, in a note, 276 _to_ 280, _and_\n 292 _to_ 297.\n\n_He offered himself_\n\n _by the Spirit_ 297\n\n _without spot to God_ 297\n\n _Not for all men_ 301 & 276\n\n _but for his sheep and friends_ 316\n\n _and for his church_ 318 _Dr. Magee\u2019s Discourses_, in a note\n 298-317\n\n _This evidenced_\n\n _by his love to it_ 318\n\n _his propriety in it_ 322\n\n _and saving it_ _ibid_\n\n _Objections answered_ 319\n\n_Christ purchased grace and glory_ 328\n\n_Universal redemption_,\n\n _its consequences_ 326\n\n _Arguments for it considered_ 327\n\n _Texts urged for it explained_ 343\n\n _How the word_ All, &c. _is to be explained_ 341\n\n_Special Redemption,_\n\n _consistent with the covenant of grace_ 329\n\n _and with preaching the gospel_ 331\n\n _It advances grace more than general does_ 337\n\n _It leads not to despair_ 331\n\n _Whether it be contrary to scripture_ 338\n\n_Christ intercedes not for all_ 324\n\n_Divine expostulations explained_ 333\n\n_How all should repent and believe, though Christ died not for all_ 335\n\n _Sacrifice of Christ sufficient for all_, in a note 349\n\n\nQUEST. XLV. Of Christ\u2019s Kingly office.\n\n\n_As respecting his subjects_\n\n _What they were, before subdued_ 353\n\n _How brought into subjection_ 354\n\n _How their subjection expressed at first_ 357\n\n _Their behaviour and conflicts_ 358\n\n _How Christ deals with them_ 361\n\n_As respecting his enemies_ 362\n\n _He governed the church before and since his incarnation_ 364\n\n_This office executed by him in glory_ 365\n\n\nOf the MILLENNIUM.\n\n\n_Various opinions about it_ 366\n\n _Some have gross_ Ideas _of it_ 370\n\n _What shall precede or attend it_ 368\n\n _Gospel shall then be more spread_ 373\n\n_How this doctrine to be treated_ 367\n\n_In what respects it is to be allowed_ 368\n\n_Some prophecies of the call of the_ Jews _not yet fulfilled_ 376\n\n_Why Christ shall not reign visibly in his human nature_ 379\n\n_Temple-service not to be revived_ 381\n\n _Gospel-ordinances shall be continued_ 382\n\n_First resurrection; how understood by some_ 383\n\n _Its literal sense debated_ 384\n\n_General conflagration_ 387\n\n _New heavens and new earth_ 388\n\n_Resurrection of the church sometimes taken mystically_ 389\n\n_1000 years how understood by some_ 391\n\n _These not yet begun_ _ibid_\n\n_Mediatorial kingdom of Christ eternal_ 392\n\n1 Cor. xv. ver. 24, 25, 28. _explained_ 393\n\n\nQUEST. XLVI, XLVII, XLVIII. Of Christ\u2019s Humiliation.\n\n\n_This shewn in his birth and infancy_ 398\n\n _In his parentage_ 399\n\n _In the place of his birth and abode_ 400\n\n _In the sinless infirmities of his life_ 422\n\n _In his being made under the law_ 401\n\n _In his being exposed to indignities_ 402\n\n_Temptations endured by him_ 404\n\n _General remarks on them_ 406\n\n _The time and place thereof_ 405\n\n _His first temptation_ 410\n\n _His second temptation_ 412\n\n _Its matter explained_ 416\n\n _His third temptation_ 417\n\n _What to be observed therein_ 419\n\n _Temptations were mental_, in a note 420\n\n\nQuest. XLIX, L. Of Christ\u2019s humiliation before and after his death.\n\n\n_Christ betrayed by_ Judas 424\n\n _Forsaken by his disciples_ 425\n\n _Denied by_ Peter 426\n\n _Scorned by the world_ _ibid_\n\n _Reviled by many_ 428\n\n _Inferences_ _ibid_\n\n _Prosecuted by the_ Jews 429\n\n _Condemned by_ Pilate _ibid_\n\n _Tormented by his persecutors_ 431\n\n _Bore the wrath of God_ _ibid_\n\n_Death of the cross cruel and painful_ 433\n\n _Shameful, servile, and cursed_ 434\n\n_Christ buried with respect by his friends_ 437\n\n _Was under the power of death till the third day_ 438\n\n _Of his descent into hell_ 440\n\n _How the Papists understand it_ 441\n\n 1 Pet. iii. 18. _explained_, in a note 442\n\n\nQUEST. LI, LII. Of Christ\u2019s Resurrection and Exaltation.\n\n\n_Resurrection of Christ proved_ 444\n\n _By credible witnesses_ 448\n\n _They were men of integrity_ 449\n\n _By the conduct of his enemies_ 450\n\n _By miracles_ 451\n\n_Properties of his risen body_ 452\n\n_Christ raised the third day_ 453\n\n _Reasons of it_ 454\n\n _Was not three whole days and nights in the grave_ 455\n\nSocinians\u2019 _account of Christ\u2019s resurrection_ 457\n\n_Christ\u2019s own and his peoples\u2019 concern in his resurrection_ 458\n\n\nQUEST. LIII, LIV. Of Christ\u2019s Ascension.\n\n\n_It was real and visible_ 464\n\n _Its necessity and design_ 468\n\n_Its distance from the time of his resurrection_ 461\n\n _How this interval was employed_ 463\n\n _Matter of his conversation with his disciples_ 464\n\n_Remarks on what preceded it_ 460\n\n _He ascended from mount_ Olivet 467\n\n_Christ\u2019s sitting at the right hand of God_ 471\n\n\nQUEST. LV. Of Christ\u2019s Intercession.\n\n\n_Necessity of it_ 473\n\n _His fitness for it_ 474\n\n_Manner of it_ 477\n\n _How it differs from our prayers_ 476\n\n_What procured by it_ 479\n\n_How to be improved_ _ibid_\n\n\nQUEST. LVI. Of Christ\u2019s coming to judge the world.\n\n\n_The time of his appearance_ 481\n\n_The glory that shall attend it_ 482\n\n\nQUEST. LVII, LVIII, LIX. Of the benefits of redemption, and the\napplication thereof.\n\n\n_Benefits procured by Christ_ 486\n\n _These applied by the Holy Ghost_ 487\n\n _To all for whom they were purchased_ (_vide_ 349) 488\n\n\nQUEST. LX. Of the disadvantages of those who never hear the gospel.\n\n\n_State of the Heathen considered_ 491\n\n _No salvation without the gospel_\u2014tamen qu\u00e6re 492\n\n _Nor without faith in Christ_\u2014tamen qu\u00e6re _ibid_\n\n_Deists; falseness of their hope set forth_ 494\n\n _False grounds of hope in others_ 496\n\n_Salvation in none but Christ_ 498\n\n _This proved_ 499\n\n _Objections answered_ 502\n\n_Christ the Saviour only of his Body the church_ 508\n\n\nQUEST. LXI, LXII, LXIII, LXIV. Of the Church, visible and invisible.\n\n\nChurch, _the word how used_, (515 in a note) 510\n\n _Places of worship so termed_ 511\n\n _Their first erection_ 512\n\n_Its distinction into visible and invisible_ 516\n\n_Invisible church described_ 519\n\n _This farther explained and defended_ 520\n\n_Visible church described_ 521\n\n _In what respects it is one_ 522\n\n _In what respects it is not one_ _ibid_\n\n _Its concern for the children of its members_ 526\n\nJewish _church, its establishment_ ibid\n\n _Its government_ 527\n\n_How they promoted religion in their synagogues_ 529\n\n _Their_ Proseuch\u00e6, _or places appointed for prayer_ 530\n\n_A particular_ gospel-church _described_ 536\n\n _Its matter_ 539\n\n _Its form or bond of union_ 540\n\n _Its subjection to Christ to be professed_ 542\n\n _How this to be made visible_ 543\n\n _Its power of admission_ 541\n\n _The reformed churches differ about this_ _ibid_\n\n _Terms of communion fixed by Christ_ _ibid_\n\n _Its power of exclusion_ 544\n\n _Causes of exclusion_ 545\n\n _The way of proceeding therein_ 547\n\n _With what temper this should be done_ 549\n\n _What meant by being delivered to Satan_ 550\n\n _and for what end_ 551\n\n_The first preaching and success of the gospel_ 532\n\n_Conduct of the Apostles in planting gospel-churches_ 534\n_Church-communion proved_\n\n _from the law of nature_ 538\n\n _from scripture_ _ibid_\n\n_Government of churches by their officers_ 552\n\n\u0391\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, \u0395\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, \u0394\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, in a note, _ibid_\n\n_The office of a Pastor, Bishop, or Elder_ 555\n\n _Bishops and Elders the same_ 556\n\n _Jerom\u2019s account of the increase of the power of Bishops_, in a note\n 558\n\n _Pastors chosen by the church_ 561\n\n\u03a7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c9, in a note 563\n\n _How to be set apart_ _ibid_\n\n _How their office to be discharged_ 565\n\n _Whether a Teacher be a distinct officer_ 566\n\n_Synods, the abuse and advantage of them_ 566\n\n_Parishes, why churches were so called by ancient writers_ 567\n\n_The office of a Deacon_ 570\n\n_Officers of the church_, in a note 571\n\n_Privileges of the visible church_ 572\n\n _It is under Christ\u2019s special care_ 574\n\n _Wherein this consists_ 575\n\n _It is under Christ\u2019s special government_ 576\n\n _In what respects_ 577\n\n _It enjoys communion of saints_ _ibid_\n\n _It has the ordinary means of grace_ 578\n\n\n\n\n THE WORK OF CREATION.\n\n\n\n\n Quest. XIV., XV.\n\n\n QUEST. XIV. _How doth God execute his decrees?_\n\n ANSW. God executeth his decrees in the works of creation and\n providence, according to his infallible fore-knowledge, and the free\n and immutable counsel of his own will.\n\n QUEST. XV. _What is the work of creation?_\n\n ANSW. The work of creation is that, wherein God did, in the\n beginning, by the word of his power, make, of nothing, the world,\n and all things therein, for himself, within the space of six days,\n and all very good.\n\nHaving considered God\u2019s eternal purpose, as respecting whatever shall\ncome to pass, which is generally called an internal, or immanent act of\nthe divine will, we are now to consider those works which are produced\nby him, in pursuance thereof. It is inconsistent with the idea of an\ninfinitely perfect Being, to suppose, that any of his decrees shall not\ntake effect, _Hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?_ Num.\nxxiii. 19. _His counsel shall stand, and he will do all his pleasure_,\nIsa. xlvi. 10. This is a necessary consequence, from the immutability of\nhis will, as well as from the end which he has designed to attain, to\nwit, the advancement of his own glory; and therefore, if he should not\nexecute his decrees, he would lose that revenue of glory, which he\ndesigned to bring to himself thereby, which it cannot be supposed that\nhe would do; and accordingly we are to consider his power as exerted, in\norder to the accomplishment of his purpose. This is said to have been\ndone either in the first production of all things, which is called, _The\nwork of creation_, or in his upholding and governing all things, which\nis his _providence_; both which are to be particularly considered. And,\n\nI. We are to speak concerning the work of creation, and so to enquire\nwhat we are to understand by _creation_, and to consider it as a work\npeculiar to God.\n\nII. That this work was not performed from eternity, but in the beginning\nof time.\n\nIII. How he is said to create all things by the word of his power.\n\nIV. The end for which he made them, namely, for himself, or for his own\nglory.\n\nV. The time in which he made them. And,\n\nVI. The quality or condition thereof, as all things are said to have\nbeen made very good.\n\nI. As to the meaning of the word _creation_; it is the application\nthereof to the things made, or some circumstances attending this action,\nthat determine the sense of it. The Hebrew and Greek words[1], by which\nit is expressed, are sometimes used to signify the natural production of\nthings: Thus it is said, in Psal. cii. 18. _The people that shall be\ncreated_, speaking of the generation to come, _shall praise the Lord_;\nand elsewhere, in Ezek. xxi. 30. says God, _I will judge thee in the\nplace where thou wast created_, that is, where thou wast born, in the\nland of thy nativity. And sometimes it is applied to signify the\ndispensations of providence, which, though they are the wonderful\neffects of divine power, yet are taken in a sense different from the\nfirst production of all things: thus it is said, in Isa. xlv. 7. _I form\nthe light, and create darkness_; which metaphorical expressions are\nexplained in the following words, _I make peace, and create evil_.\n\nAnd, on the other hand, sometimes God\u2019s creating is expressed by his\n_making all things_; which word, in its common acceptation, is taken for\nthe natural production of things; though, in this instance, it is used\nfor the production of things which are supernatural: thus it is said, in\nJohn i. 3. _All things were made by him_; and elsewhere, in Psal.\nxxxiii. 6. _By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all by\nthe host of them by the breath of his mouth._ Therefore it is by the\napplication of these words, to the things produced, that we are more\nespecially to judge of the sense of them. Accordingly, when God is said\nto create, or make the heavens and earth, or to bring things into being,\nwhich before did not exist, this is the most proper sense of the word\ncreation; and in this sense we take it, in the head we are entering\nupon. It is the production of all things out of nothing, by his almighty\nword; and this is generally called immediate creation, which was the\nfirst display of divine power, a work with which time began; so we are\nto understand those words, _In the beginning God created the heaven and\nthe earth_, Gen. i. 1. that is, that first matter out of which all\nthings were formed, which has been neither increased nor diminished ever\nsince, nor can be, whatever alterations there may be made in things,\nwithout supposing an act of the divine will to annihilate any part\nthereof, which we have no ground to do.\n\nAgain, it is sometimes taken for God\u2019s bringing things into that form,\nin which they are, which is generally called a mediate creation, as in\nthe account we have of it in the first chapter of Genesis; in which God\nis said, out of that matter which he created at first, to create the\nheavens, the earth, the sea, and all living creatures that move therein,\nafter their respective kinds, which no finite wisdom, or power, could\nhave done. The work was supernatural, and so differs from the natural\nproduction of things by creatures, inasmuch as they can produce nothing,\nbut out of other things, that have in themselves a tendency, according\nto the fixed laws of nature, to be made, that which is designed to be\nproduced out of them; as when a plant, or a tree, is produced out of a\nseed, or when the form, or shape of things is altered by the skill of\nmen, where there is a tendency in the things themselves, in a natural\nway, to answer the end designed by them that made them, in which respect\nthey are said to make, but not create those things; so that creation is\na work peculiar to God, from which all creatures are excluded.\nAccordingly, it is a glory which God often appropriates to himself in\nscripture: thus he is called, by way of eminence, _The Creator of the\nends of the earth_, Isa. xl. 28. and he speaks, concerning himself, with\nan unparalleled magnificence of expression, _I have made the earth, and\ncreated man upon it; I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens,\nand all their host have I commanded_, Isa. xlv. 12. and he is said to\nhave done this, exclusively of all others: thus he says, _I am the Lord,\nthat maketh all things, that stretcheth forth the heavens alone, that\nspreadeth abroad the earth by myself_, Isa. xliv. 24. And, indeed, it\ncannot be otherwise, since it is a work of infinite power, and therefore\ntoo great for any finite being, who can act no otherwise, but in\nproportion to the circumscribed limits of its own power; and being, at\nbest, but a natural agent, it cannot produce any thing supernatural.\nFrom whence it may be inferred, that no creature was an instrument made\nuse of, by God, in the production of all things; or that infinite power\ncould not be exerted by a finite medium: but this has been already\nconsidered, under a foregoing answer.\n\nII. We are now to consider that this work of creation was not performed\nfrom eternity, but in the beginning of time. This we assert against some\nof the heathen philosophers, who have, in their writings, defended the\neternity of the world[2], being induced hereunto by those low\nconceptions, which they had of the power of God, as supposing, that\nbecause all creatures, or natural agents, must have some materials to\nwork upon, so that as this proposition is true, with respect to them,\nthat nothing can be made out of nothing, they conclude, that it is also\napplicable to God. And this absurd opinion has been imbibed by some, who\nhave pretended to the Christian name; it was maintained by Hermogenes,\nabout the middle of the second century, and, with a great deal of spirit\nand argument, opposed by Tertullian; and, among other things, that\nfather observes, that philosophy, in some respects, had paved the way to\nheresy[3]; and probably the apostle Paul was apprehensive that it would\ndo so; or that they, who were bred up in the schools of the\nphilosophers, would, as it is plain they often did, adapt their notions\nin divinity, to those which they had before learned therein, of which\nthis is a flagrant instance; and therefore he says, _Beware, lest any\nman spoil you through philosophy, and vain deceit, after the tradition\nof men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ_, Col.\nii. 8. and they, who have defended this notion, have been divided in\ntheir sentiments about it. Some suppose, in general, that matter was\neternal, but not brought into that form, in which it now is, till God,\nby his almighty power, produced that change in it, and so altered the\nform of things. Others suppose, that the world was in a form, not much\nunlike to what it now is, from eternity, and that there were eternal\nsuccessive ages, and generations of men, and a constant alteration of\nthings. Some parts of the world, at one time, destroyed by deluges, or\nfire, or earthquakes, and other parts at another time; and so there was\na kind of succession of generation and corruption; former worlds lost\nand buried in ruins, and all the monuments of their antiquity perished\nwith them, and new ones arising in their stead. This they assert, as a\nblind to their ungrounded opinion, and as an answer to that reasonable\ndemand which might be made; If the world was eternal, how comes it to\npass that we know nothing of what was done in it, in those ages, which\nwent before that which we reckon the first beginning of time?\n\nAs for the school-men, though they have not any of them given directly\ninto this notion, which is so notoriously contrary to scripture, yet\nsome of them have very much confounded and puzzled the minds of men with\ntheir metaphysical subtilties about this matter; as some of them have\npretended to maintain, that, though God did not actually create any\nthing before that beginning of time, which is mentioned in scripture,\nyet he might, had he pleased, have produced things from eternity[4],\nbecause he had, from eternity, infinite power, and a sovereign will;\ntherefore this power might have been deduced into act, and so there\nmight have been an eternal production of things; for to suppose, that\ninfinite power cannot exert itself, is contrary to the idea of its being\ninfinite. And to suppose that God was infinitely good, from eternity,\nimplies, that he might have communicated being to creatures from\neternity, in which his goodness would have exerted itself. And they\nfarther argue, that it is certain, that God might have created the world\nsooner than he did; so that, instead of its having continued in being,\nthat number of years, which it has done, it might have existed any other\nunlimited number of years; or since, by an act of his will, it has\nexisted so many thousand years, as it appears to have done, from\nscripture, it might, had he pleased, have existed any other number of\nyears, though we suppose it never so large, and consequently that it\nmight have existed from eternity. But what is this, but to darken truth,\nby words without knowledge? or to measure the perfections of God, by the\nline or standard of finite things? it is to conceive of the eternity of\nGod, as though it were successive. Therefore, though we do not deny but\nthat God could have created the world any number of years that a finite\nmind can describe, sooner than he did; yet this would not be to create\nit from eternity, since that exceeds all bounds. We do not deny but that\nthe divine power might have been deduced into an act, or created the\nworld before he did; yet to say that he could create it from eternity,\nis contrary to the nature of things; for it is to suppose, that an\ninfinite duration might be communicated to a finite being, or that God\nmight make a creature equal, in duration, with himself; which, as it\ncontains the greatest absurdity, so the impossibility of the thing does\nnot, in the least, argue any defect of power in him.\n\nFrom whence we may infer, the vanity, and bold presumption, of measuring\nthe power of God by the line of the creature; and the great advantage\nwhich we receive from divine revelation, which sets this matter in a\nclear light, by which it appears, that nothing existed before time but\nGod; this is agreeable to the highest reason, and the divine\nperfections. To suppose, that a creature existed from eternity, implies\na contradiction; for to be a creature, is to be produced by the power of\na creator, who is God, and this is inconsistent with its existing from\neternity; for that is to suppose that it had a being before it was\nbrought into being.\n\nMoreover, since to exist from eternity, is to have an infinite, or\nunlimited duration, it will follow from thence, that if the first\nmatter, out of which all things were formed, was infinite in its\nduration, it must have all other perfections; particularly, it must be\nself-existent, and have in it nothing that is finite, for infinite and\nfinite perfections are inconsistent with each other; and, if so, then it\nmust not consist of any parts, or be devisible, as all material things\nare: besides, if the world was eternal, it could not be measured by\nsuccessive duration, inasmuch as there is no term, or point, from whence\nthis succession may be computed, for that is inconsistent with eternity;\nand if its duration was once unmeasured, or not computed by succession,\nhow came it afterwards to be successive, as the duration of all material\nbeings is?\n\nAgain, to suppose matter to be co-eternal with God, is to suppose it to\nbe equal with him, for whatever has one divine perfection, must have\nall; so that this is contrary to those natural ideas, which we have of\nthe divine perfections, and contains such absurdities, as have not the\nleast colour of reason to support them.\n\nBut it more evidently appears, from scripture, that the world was made\nin the beginning of time, and therefore did not exist from eternity;\nsince therein we read, that _in the beginning God created the heaven and\nthe earth_, Gen. i. 1. and elsewhere, _Thou, Lord, in the beginning,\nhast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of\nthine hands_, Heb. i. 10. Now since we are not to confound time and\neternity together, or to say, that that which was created in the\nbeginning, was without beginning, that is, from eternity, it is evident\nthat no creature was eternal.\n\nThus having considered the impossibility of the existence of finite\nthings, from eternity, we may here take occasion to vindicate the\naccount we have in scripture, concerning the world\u2019s having been created\nbetween five and six thousand years since, from the objections of those\nwho suppose, that the antiquity thereof exceeds the scripture-account by\nmany ages. Those that follow the LXX translation of the Old Testament,\nin their chronological account of time, suppose the world to be between\nfourteen and fifteen hundred years older than we have ground to conclude\nit is, according to the account we have thereof in the Hebrew text. This\nwe cannot but think to be a mistake, and has led many of the fathers\ninto the same error[5], who, through their unacquaintedness with the\nHebrew language, excepting Jerom and Origen, hardly used any but this\ntranslation[6].\n\nBut this we shall pass over, and proceed to consider the account that\nsome give of the antiquity of the world, which is a great deal remote,\nfrom what we have in scripture, though this is principally to be found\nin the writings of those who were altogether unacquainted with it. Thus\nthe Egyptians, according to the report of some ancient historians,\npretended, that they had chronicles of the reigns of their kings for\nmany thousand years longer than we have ground to conclude the world has\nstood[7]. And the Chaldeans exceed them in the accounts they give of\nsome things contained in their history; and the Chinese pretend to\nexceed them by many thousand years, but these accounts are fabulous and\nungrounded[8][9]. And inasmuch as they are confuted, and exposed by many\nof the heathen themselves, as ridiculous and absurd boasts, rather than\nauthentic accounts, no one who has the least degree of modesty, can\noppose them to the account we have, in scripture, of the time that the\nworld has continued, which is no more than between five or six thousand\nyears.\n\nAnd that the world cannot be of greater antiquity than this may be\nproved, from the account which we have of the first original of nations,\nand the inventors of things in scripture, and other writings. It is not\nreasonable to suppose, that men lived in the world many thousand years,\nwithout the knowledge of those things, that were necessary for the\nimprovement of their minds, and others that were conducive to the good\nof human society, as well as subservient to the conveniencies of life;\nbut this they must have done, who are supposed to have lived before\nthese things were known in the world.\n\nAs to what concerns the original of nations, which spread themselves\nover the earth after the universal deluge, we have an account of it in\nGen. x. and, in particular, of the first rise of the Assyrian monarchy,\nwhich was erected by Nimrod, who is supposed to be the same that other\nwriters call Belus. This monarchy was continued, either under the name\nof the Assyrian, or Babylonian, till Cyrus\u2019s time, and no writers\npretend that there was any before it: and, according to the scripture\naccount hereof, it was erected above seventeen hundred years after the\ncreation of the world; whereas, if the world had been so old, as some\npretend it is, or had exceeded the scripture account of the age and\nduration thereof, we should certainly have had some relation of the\ncivil affairs of kingdoms and nations, in those foregoing ages, to be\ndepended on, but of this, history is altogether silent; for we suppose\nthe account that the Egyptians give of their Dynasties, and the reigns\nof their gods and kings, in those foregoing ages, are, as was before\nobserved, ungrounded and fabulous.\n\nAs to what respects the inventors of things, which are necessary in\nhuman life, we have some hints of this in scripture. As we have an\naccount in scripture, Gen. iv. 20-22. of the first that made any\nconsiderable improvement in the art of husbandry, and in the management\nof cattle, and of the first _instructor of every artificer in brass and\niron_, by which means those tools were framed, which are necessary for\nthe making those things that are useful in life; and also of the first\ninventor of music, who is called, _The father of all such as handle the\nharp and organ_, which was in that space of time, which intervened\nbetween the creation and the deluge; and, after this we read of the\nfirst plantation of vineyards, and the farther improvement thereof by\nmaking wine, by Noah, Gen. ix. 20, 21. which the world seems to have\nknown nothing of before. And it is more than probable, that the art of\nnavigation was not known, till Noah, by divine direction, framed the\nark, which gave the first hint to this useful invention; and this art\nwas not, for many ages, so much improved, as it is in our day. The\nmariner\u2019s needle, and the variation of the compass, or the method of\nsailing by observation of the heavenly bodies, seem to have been\naltogether unknown by those mariners, in whose ship the apostle Paul\nsailed, Acts xxvii. for want of which, they exposed themselves to suffer\nshipwreck, hoping, thereby, to save their lives.\n\nAnd, as to what concerns those inventions, that are necessary for the\nimprovement of knowledge; it does not appear that writing was known till\nMoses\u2019 time; and, after this, the use of letters was brought into Greece\nby Cadmus. And therefore it is no wonder, when historians give some dark\nhints of things done before this, being unacquainted with\nscripture-history, that they are at a loss, and pretend not to give an\naccount of things done before the deluge[10]. Shall we suppose, that\nthere were so many ages, as some pretend in which men lived, and yet no\naccount given of things done therein, transmitted to posterity, by those\nwho assert it? Therefore there can be no ground to conclude, that the\nworld has stood longer than the scripture account thereof[11]. We pass\nby the invention of the art of printing, which has not been known in the\nworld above three hundred years; and the many improvements that have\nbeen made in philosophy, mathematicks, medicine, anatomy, chymistry, and\nmechanicks, in the last age; and can we suppose that there are so many\nthousand ages passed without any of these improvements? And to this we\nmay add the origin of idolatry, in them who worshipped men, whom they\ncalled gods, namely, such as had been useful while they lived among\nthose that worshipped them, or had been of great note, or power, in the\nworld, or who were the first inventors of things: this being known, and\nthe time in which they lived, mentioned, by some writers among the\nheathen, which is much later than the first age of the world, is a\nfarther evidence of this truth, that it has not stood so many years as\nsome pretend.\n\nIf it be objected, that there has been a kind of circulation, or\nrevolution of things with respect to men\u2019s knowing, and afterwards\nlosing and then regaining the knowledge of some of those arts, which we\nsuppose to have been first discovered in in later ages, so that they\nmight have been known in the world many ages before:\n\nThis is to assert, without pretending to give any proof thereof; and\nnothing can be inferred from a mere possibility of things, which no one,\nwho has the least degree of judgment, will ever acquiesce in; especially\nthe memory of some things could never have been universally erased out\nof the minds of men, by any devastations that might be supposed to have\nbeen made in the world. Therefore, to conclude this argument, nothing\ncan be reasonably objected against the account we have in scripture, of\nthe creation of the world at first, and of its having continued that\nnumber of years, and no longer, which we believe it to have done, from\nthose sacred writings, which contain the only authentic records thereof,\nand have sufficient authority to put to silence all those fabulous\nconjectures, or vain and groundless boasts, that pretend to contradict\nit.\n\nIII. God is said to have created all things by the word of his power;\nthus the Psalmist says, _By the word of the Lord were the heavens made;\nand all the host of them by the breath of his mouth_, Psal. xxxiii. 6.\nSome, indeed, understand this, and several other scriptures, in which\nGod is said to create all things by his word, as implying, that God the\nFather made all things by the Son, his personal Word: but, though this\nbe a great truth, and it be expressly said, _All things were made by\nhim_, John i. 3. as has been considered under a foregoing answer[12],\nwhereby the divinity of Christ was proved; yet here we speak of\ncreation, as an effect of that power, which is a perfection of the\ndivine nature. And whereas it is called _the word_ of his power, it\nsignifies, that God produced all things by an act of his power and\nsovereign will; so that how difficult soever the work was in itself, as\ninfinitely superior to finite power, yet it argues, that it was\nperformed by God without any manner of difficulty, and therefore it was\nas easy to him as a thought, or an act of willing is to any creature;\naccordingly it is said, _He spake and it was done; he commanded, and it\nstood fast_, Psal. xxxiii. 9. As nothing could resist his will, or\nhinder his purpose from taking effect, so all things were equally\npossible to him. In this respect, creation differs from the natural\nproduction of things, which, though they be the effects of power, yet\nnothing is produced by a powerful word, or, as it were, commanded into\nbeing, but that which is the effect of almighty power, as the creation\nof all things is said to be.\n\nIV. The end for which God made all things, was his own glory; or, as it\nis said, _He made all things for himself_, Prov. xvi. 4. that is, that\nhe might demonstrate his eternal power and Godhead, and all those divine\nperfections, which shine forth in this illustrious work, and so might\nreceive a revenue of glory, as the result thereof. Not that he was under\nany natural necessity to do this, or would have been less happy and\nglorious in himself, than he was from all eternity, if he had not given\nbeing to any thing. We are far from supposing, that there is any\naddition made hereby to his essential glory; this appears from the\nindependence of his divine perfections: As they are not derived from the\ncreature, so they cannot receive any additional improvement from him, no\nmore than the lustre of the sun is increased by its being beheld by our\neyes; nor does it sustain any real diminution thereof, when its\nbrightness is obscured by the interposure of any thing that hides it\nfrom us. God did not make the world that his power or wisdom might be\nimproved hereby; but that he might be admired and adored, or that his\nrelative glory might be advanced by us, which would be the highest\nadvantage to us. This was the great end for which he made all things;\nand it is very agreeable to the scope and design of scripture in\ngeneral, which puts us upon giving him the glory due to his name, as\nbeing induced hereunto by all the displays thereof in his works.\n\nTherefore it is a very unbecoming way of speaking, and tends very much\nto detract from the divine perfections, to say as a judicious writer[13]\nrepresents some objecting, \u201cAs though God were not so selfish, and\ndesirous of glory, as to make the world, and all creatures therein, only\nfor his own honour, and to be praised by men.\u201d And another writer[14]\nspeaks his own sense of this matter, in words no less shocking. He says,\nindeed, \u201cThat God cannot really suffer any diminution of his own by our\ndislike, or is advanced in honour by our approbation of his\ndispensations;\u201d which, as it respects his essential glory, is an\nundoubted truth; but yet he speaks, in other respects, of the glory of\nGod, by which, it is plain, he means that which is generally called his\nrelative, or manifestative glory, in a very unbecoming manner, when he\nsays; \u201cThat God, being infinitely perfect, must be infinitely happy\nwithin himself, and so can design no self-end without himself; therefore\nwhat other end can he be supposed to aim at in these things, but our\ngood? It is therefore a vain imagination, that the great design of any\nof God\u2019s actions, his glorious works and dispensations, should be thus\nto be admired, or applauded, by his worthless creatures, that he may\ngain esteem, or a good word, from such vile creatures as we are. We take\ntoo much upon us, if we imagine that the all-wise God can be concerned,\nwhether such blind creatures, as we are, approve or disapprove of his\nproceedings; and we think too meanly of, and detract from his great\nMajesty, if we conceive he can be delighted with our applause, or aim at\nreputation from us in his glorious design, that therefore such as we\nshould think well of him, or have due apprehensions of those attributes,\nby the acknowledgment of which we are said to glorify him.\u201d This is, at\nonce, to divest him of all that glory, which he designed from his works;\nbut far be it from us to approve of any such modes of speaking.\nTherefore we must conclude, that though God did not make any thing with\na design to render himself more glorious than he was, from all eternity,\nyet it was, that his creatures should behold and improve the displays of\nhis divine perfections, and so render himself the object of desire and\ndelight, that religious worship might be excited hereby, and that we\nmight ascribe to him the glory that is due to his name.\n\nWe might also observe, that God created all things by his power, that he\nmight take occasion to set forth the glory of all his other perfections,\nin his works of providence and grace, and particularly in the work of\nour redemption, all which suppose the creature brought into being; and\nso his first work made way for all others, which are, or shall be\nperformed by him in time, or throughout the ages of eternity.\n\nV. We are now to consider the space of time, in which God created all\nthings, namely, in six days. This could not have been determined by the\nlight of nature, and therefore must be concluded to be a doctrine of\npure revelation; as also the account we have, in Gen. i. of the order in\nwhich things were brought to perfection, or the work of each day. Here\nwe cannot but take notice of the opinion of some, who suppose, that the\nworld was created in an instant, as thinking, that this is more\nagreeable to the idea of creation, and more plainly distinguishes it\nfrom the natural production of things, which are brought to perfection\nby degrees, and not in a moment, as they suppose this work was. This\nopinion has been advanced by some ancient writers; and whereas it seems\ndirectly to contradict that account which is given thereof by Moses,\nthey suppose that the distribution of the work of creation, into that of\nsix days, is only designed to lead us into the knowledge of the distinct\nparts thereof, whereby they may be better conceived of, as though they\nhad been made in such an order, one after another; but this is to make\nthe scripture speak what men please to have it, without any regard had\nto the genuine sense and import of the words thereof. Had it only been\nasserted, that the first matter, out of which all things were formed,\nhad been created in an instant; that is not only agreeable to the work\nof creation, but to the literal sense of the text; for it is said to be\ncreated _in the beginning_, that is, in the first point of time; or if\nit had only been said, that God could have brought all things to\nperfection in an instant, we would not have denied it; but to assert\nthat he did so, we cannot but think an ill-grounded sense of a plain\npart of scripture. That which induces them to give into this opinion is,\nbecause they think that this redounds to the glory of God, and seems\nmost agreeable to a supernatural production of things, and to those\nexpressions, by which the work of creation is represented; as in the\nscripture before-mentioned in which it is said, _God spake, and it was\ndone_; that which was produced by a word\u2019s speaking, is performed in an\ninstant. And they suppose, that this is agreeable to the account which\nwe have of that change which shall pass on the bodies of those who shall\nbe found alive at the last day, that it shall be _in a moment, in the\ntwinkling of an eye_, 1 Cor. xv. 52. and to some other miracles and\nsupernatural productions, which have been instantaneous. But all this is\nnot sufficient to support an opinion, which cannot be defended any\notherwise, than by supposing that the express words of scripture must be\nunderstood in an allegorical sense.\n\nThere is therefore another account given of this matter, by some\ndivines, of very considerable worth and judgment,[15] which, as they\napprehend, contains a concession of as much as need be demanded in\nfavour of the instantaneous production of things, as most agreeable to\nthe idea of creation, and yet does not militate against the sense of the\naccount given thereof, in Gen. i. and that is, that the distinct parts\nof the creation were each of them produced in a moment. As for instance,\nin the work of the first day, there was the first matter of all things\nproduced in one moment; and, after that, in the same day, light was\nproduced, in another moment, agreeable to those words, _Let there be\nlight, and there was light_; and, in another moment, there was a\ndivision of the light from the darkness, and so the work of the first\nday was finished. And, in the other days, where the works were various,\nthere were distinct acts of the divine will, or words of command given\nconcerning their production, which immediately ensued hereupon; and\nthere was, in several instances, an interval between the production of\none thing and another, which belonged to the same day\u2019s work;\nparticularly, in the sixth day, there was first a word of command given,\nby which beasts and creeping things were formed, and then another word\ngiven forth, by which man was created, when, indeed, there was an\napprobation of the former part of this day\u2019s work, in ver. 26. God says,\n_That it was good_, before the general approbation, expressed in ver.\n31. in the end of the day, was given, when _God saw every thing that he\nhad made, and behold it was very good_.\n\nThere is nothing, in this opinion, (the main reason and foundation\nwhereof has been before observed) that can be much disliked, neither is\nit very material whether it be defended or opposed; and therefore, I\nthink, they speak with the greatest prudence, as well as temper who\nreckon this among the number of those questions, which are generally\ncalled problematical, that is, such as may be either affirmed or denied,\nwithout any great danger of departing from the faith;[16] and, indeed, I\ncannot see that the reasons assigned, which induce persons to adhere to\neither side of the question, with so much warmth, as to be impatient of\ncontradiction, are sufficiently conclusive.\n\nThe main objection brought against their opinion, who plead for an\ninstantaneous production of things in each day, is, that for God to\nbring the work of each day to perfection in a moment, and, after that,\nnot to begin the work of the next day, till the respective day began,\ninfers God\u2019s resting each day from his work; whereas, he is not said to\nrest till the whole creation was brought to perfection. But I cannot see\nthis to be a just consequence, or sufficient to overthrow this opinion;\nsince God\u2019s resting from his work, when the whole was finished,\nprincipally intends his not producing any new species of creatures, and\nnot barely his ceasing to produce what he had made; for such a rest as\nthis might as well be applied to his finishing the work of each day,\nthough he took up the whole space of a day therein, as if he had\nfinished it in a moment.\n\nAnd, on the other hand, when it is objected against the common opinion\nrelating to God\u2019s bringing the work of each day to perfection by\ndegrees, so as to take up the space of a day in doing it, that it is not\nagreeable to the idea of creation. This is no just way of reasoning, nor\nsufficient to overthrow it; since we generally conclude, that God\u2019s\nupholding providence, which some call, as it were, a continued creation,\nis no less an instance of divine and supernatural power, than his\nproducing them at first: but this is not performed in an instant;\nnevertheless; it is said to be done, as the apostle speaks, in Heb. i.\n3. _By the word of his power._ Besides, there are some parts of the\ncreation, which, from the nature of the thing, could hardly be produced\nin an instant, particularly those works which were performed by motion,\nwhich cannot be instantaneous; as the dividing the light from the\ndarkness, the gathering the waters together into one place, so that the\ndry land should appear; and if this took up more than a moment, why may\nit not be supposed to take up the space of a day? So that, upon the\nwhole, we may conclude, that though it is certain that spirits, such as\nangels, or the souls of our first parents, could not be otherwise\ncreated, than in an instant, inasmuch as they are immaterial, and so do\nnot consist of parts successively formed; yet none ought to determine,\nwith too great peremptoriness, that other works, performed in the six\ndays, must each of them be performed in an instant, or else the work\ncould not properly be called a creation; and therefore the commonly\nreceived opinion seems as probable as any other, that has hitherto been\nadvanced, as it is equally, if not more agreeable, to the express words\nof scripture.\n\nHere we shall give a brief account of the work of the six days, as it is\ncontained in the first chapter of Genesis; in the first day, the first\nmatter out of which all things were produced, was created out of\nnothing, which is described as being _without form_, that is, not in\nthat form which God designed to bring it into; whereas, in other\nrespects, matter cannot be without all manner of form, or those\ndimensions that are essential to it, and, as it was created without\nform, so without motion; so that as God is the Creator of all things, he\nis the first mover. Nevertheless, I am far from thinking, that all God\ndid, in the creation of things, was by putting every thing in motion,\nand that this brought all the parts of the creation into their\nrespective form. As an artificer may be said to frame a machine, which,\nby its motion, will produce other things, which he designed to make by\nthe help thereof, without giving himself any farther trouble; so they\nsuppose, that, by those laws of motion, which God impressed upon matter\nat first, one part of the creation brought another into the various\nforms, which they attained afterwards.[17] And the first thing that was\nproduced, which was a farther part of the six days work, was light;\nconcerning this, many have advanced their own ill-grounded conjectures.\nThere are some writers, among the Papists, who have supposed that it was\na quality, without a subject,[18] which is an obscure and indefensible\nway of speaking. Others have thought, that hereby we are to understand\nthe angels; but this is to strain the sense of words too far, by having\nrecourse to a metaphor, which is inconsistent with what immediately\nfollows, that God divided the light from the darkness. But it seems most\nprobable that nothing else is intended hereby, but those lucid bodies,\nwhich, on the fourth day, were collected into the sun and fixed stars.\n\nTo this let me add, that it is more than probable that God, on the first\nday, created the highest heaven, which is sometimes called his throne,\ntogether with the angels, the glorious inhabitants thereof. It is true,\nMoses, in his history of the creation, is silent as to this matter,\nunless it may be inferred from those words, _In the beginning God\ncreated the heaven and the earth_; though, as has been before observed,\nsomething else seems principally to be intended thereby: nevertheless,\nwe have sufficient ground to conclude, that they were created in the\nbeginning of time, and consequently in the first day, from what is said\nelsewhere, that _when God laid the foundations of the earth, the morning\nstars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy_, Job\nxxxviii. 4, 7. where the angels are represented as celebrating and\nadoring those divine perfections, which were glorified in the beginning\nof the work of creation; therefore they were, at that time, brought into\nbeing.\n\nOn the _second_ day, God divided that part of the world, which is above,\nfrom that which is below, by an extended space, which is styled the\n_firmament_, and otherwise called heaven, though distinguished from the\nhighest heaven, or the heaven of heavens; and it is farther observed,\nthat hereby the waters that are above, are separated from those which\nare below, that is, the clouds from the sea, and other waters, that are\nin the bowels of the earth.\n\nAs for that conjecture of some, taken from hence, and especially from\nwhat the Psalmist says, _Praise him ye waters that are above the\nheavens_, Psal. cxlviii. 4. that there is a vast collection of\nsuper-celestial waters, which have no communication with those that are\ncontained in the clouds; this seems to be an ungrounded opinion, not\nwell agreeing with those principles of natural philosophy, which are\nreceived in this present age; though maintained by some of the ancient\nfathers, as principally founded on the sense in which they understand\nthis text; neither do they give a tolerable account of the design of\nprovidence in collecting and fixing them there[19]. Therefore nothing\nseems to be intended, in that text, but the waters that are contained in\nthe clouds as it is said, _He bindeth up the waters in his thick\nclouds_, Job xxvi. 8. and, indeed, the Hebrew words seem not to be\njustly translated[20]; for they ought to be rendered, _Ye waters that\nare from above in the firmament_, not above the heavens, but the earth,\nor a considerable distance from it, in the firmament, as the clouds are.\n\nOn the _third_ day, the sea and rivers were divided from the earth, and\nthe dry land appeared, and the earth brought forth herbs, grass, trees,\nand plants, with which it is so richly stored, which in a natural way,\nit has produced ever since.\n\nOn the _fourth_ day, the sun, moon and stars were made, to enlighten,\nand, by their influence, as it were, to enliven the world, and so render\nit a beautiful place, which would otherwise have been a dismal and\nuncomfortable dungeon; and that hereby the four seasons of the year\nmight be continued in their respective courses, and their due measures\nset to them: thus it is said, these heavenly bodies were appointed _for\nsigns, and for seasons, and for days, and for years_, Gen. i. 14.\n\nThis has occasioned some to enquire, whether any countenance is hereby\ngiven to judicial astrology, or whether the heavenly bodies have any\ninfluence on the conduct of human life, which some ancient and modern\nwriters have defended, not without advancing many absurdities,\nderogatory to the glory of providence, as well as contrary to the nature\nof second causes, and their respective effects; and, when the moral\nactions of intelligent creatures are said to be pointed at, or directed\nby the stars, this is contrary to the laws of human nature, or the\nnature of man, as a free agent; therefore, whatever be the sense of\nthese words of scripture, it is certain, they give no countenance to\nthis presumptuous and ungrounded practice. But this we shall take\noccasion to oppose, under a following answer, when we consider judicial\nastrology, as forbidden in the first commandment[21]. Therefore, all\nthat we shall add, at present, is, that when the heavenly bodies are\nsaid to be appointed _for times and seasons_, &c. nothing is intended\nthereby, but that they distinguish the times and seasons of the year;\nor, it may be, in a natural way, have some present and immediate\ninfluence on the bodies of men, and some other creatures below them.\n\nThere is also another question, which generally occurs when persons\ntreat of this subject, namely, whether there are not distinct worlds of\nmen, or other creatures, who inhabit some of those celestial bodies,\nwhich, by late observations, are supposed to be fitted to receive them.\nThis has been maintained by Keplar, bishop Wilkins, and other ingenious\nwriters; and that which has principally led them to assert it, is,\nbecause some of them are, as is almost universally allowed, not only\nbigger than this earth, but they seem to consist of matter, not much\nunlike to it, and therefore are no less fit to entertain distinct worlds\nof intelligent creatures. And they farther add, in defence of this\nargument, that it cannot reasonably be supposed that there should be\nsuch a vast collection of matter, created with no other design, but to\nadd to the small degree of light, which the planets, the moon excepted,\nafford to this lower world. As for any other advantage that they are of\nto it, any farther than as they are objects, to set forth the wisdom and\npower of God, this cannot be determined by us; therefore they conclude,\nthat they were formed for the end above mentioned. And some carry their\nconjectures beyond this, and suppose, that as every one of the fixed\nstars are bodies, which shine as the sun does, with their own\nun-borrowed light, and are vastly larger, that therefore there is some\nother use designed thereby, besides that which this world receives from\nthem, namely, to give light to some worlds of creatures, that are\naltogether unknown to us. According to this supposition, there are not\nonly more worlds than ours, but multitudes of them, in proportion to the\nnumber of the stars, which are inhabited either by men, or some other\nspecies of intelligent creatures, which tends exceedingly, in their\nopinion, to advance the power, wisdom, and goodness, of the great\nCreator.\n\nThe only thing that I shall say, concerning this modern hypothesis, is,\nthat as, on the one hand, the common method of opposition to it, is not,\nin all respects, sufficient to overthrow the argument in general,\nespecially when men pretend not to determine what kinds of intelligent\ncreatures inhabit these worlds, and when they are not too peremptory in\ntheir assertions about this matter; so, on the other hand, when this\nargument is defended with that warmth, as though it were a necessary and\nimportant article of faith, and some not only assert the possibility,\nor, at least, the probability of the truth thereof, but speak with as\nmuch assurance of it, as though it were founded on scripture; and when\nthey conclude that they are inhabited by men, and pretend to describe,\nnot only the form of some of these worlds, but give such an account of\nthe inhabitants thereof, as though they had learned it from one who came\ndown from thence[22]; in this respect, they expose the argument, which\nthey pretend to defend, to contempt, and render it justly exceptionable.\nBut, if men do not exceed those due bounds of modesty, which should\nalways attend such disquisitions, and distinguish things that are only\nprobable, from those that are demonstratively certain, and reckon this\nno other than an ingenious speculation, which may be affirmed, or\ndenied, in common with some other astronomical, or philosophical\nproblems, without considering it, as affecting any article of natural or\nrevealed religion, I would not oppose the argument in general, how much\nsoever I would do the particular explication thereof, as above\nmentioned: but, when this is brought in, as a matter of debate, in the\ntheologick schools, and disputed with as much warmth, as though it were\nnext to an heresy to deny it, I cannot but express as much dislike\nthereof, as any have done, who give into the commonly received opinion\nrelating to this matter.\n\nOn the _fifth_ day, another sort of creatures, endowed with sense, as\nwell as life and motion, were produced, partly out of the waters, and\npartly out of the earth, that was mixed with them, namely, the fish that\nwere designed to live in the waters, and the winged fowl, which were to\nfly above them[23].\n\nOn the _sixth_ day, all sorts of beasts, and creeping things, with which\nthe earth is plentifully furnished, were produced out of it. And whereas\nthere are two words used to set forth the different _species_ of living\ncreatures, as contra-distinguished from creeping things, namely, the\ncattle and the beasts of the earth, it is generally supposed to imply\nthe different sorts of beasts, such as are tame or wild, though wild\nbeasts were not, at first, so injurious to mankind as now they are.\n\nIn the latter part of the day, when this lower world was brought to\nperfection, and furnished with every thing necessary for his\nentertainment, man, for whose sake it was made, was created out of the\ndust of the ground; which will be more particularly considered in a\nfollowing answer[24].\n\nGod having thus produced all things in this order and method, as we have\nan account thereof in scripture, he fixed, or established the course or\nlaws of nature, whereby the various species of living creatures might be\npropagated, throughout all succeeding ages, without the interposure of\nhis supernatural power, in a continued creation of them; and, after\nthis, he rested from his work, when he had brought all things to\nperfection.\n\nThus having considered the creation, as a work of six days, it may\nfarther be enquired, whether it can be determined, with any degree of\nprobability, in what time, or season[25] of the year all things were\ncreated. Some are of opinion, that it was in the spring, because, at\nthat time, the face of the earth is renewed every year, and all things\nbegin to grow and flourish[26]. And some of the fathers have assigned\nthis, as a reason of it; because the Son of God, the second Adam,\nsuffered, and rose from the dead, whereby the world was, as it were,\nrenewed, at the same time of the year. But this argument is of no\nweight.\n\nTherefore the most probable opinion is, that the world was created at\nthat season of the year, which generally brings all things to\nperfection; when the fruits of the earth are fully ripe, and the harvest\nready to be gathered in, which is about autumn, the earth being then\nstored with plenty of all things, for the support of man and beast. It\nis not, indeed, very material, whether this can be determined or no,\nnevertheless this seems the more probable opinion, inasmuch as the\nbeginning of the civil year was fixed at that time. Accordingly, the\nfeast of ingathering, which was at this season of the year, is said, in\nExod. xxiii. 16. to be _in the end of the year_; therefore, as one year\nended, the other began, at this time, and so continued, till, by a\nspecial providence, the beginning of the year was altered, in\ncommemoration of Israel\u2019s deliverance out of Egypt. And, from that time,\nthere was a known distinction among the Jews, between their beginning of\nthe civil and the ecclesiastical year; the former of which was the same\nas it had been from the beginning of the world, and answers to our month\nSeptember; from whence it is more than probable, that the world was\ncreated at that season of the year. We now proceed,\n\nVI. To consider, the quality, or condition, in which God created all\nthings, which were, at first, pronounced by him _very good_, Gen. i. 31.\nIt is certain, nothing imperfect can come out of the hand of God, and\nthe goodness of things is their perfection. Every thing that was made,\nwas made exactly agreeable to the idea, or platform thereof, that was\nlaid in the divine mind. All things were good, that is perfect, in their\nkind, and therefore, there was not the least blemish in the work. Every\nthing was beatiful, as it was the effect of infinite wisdom, as well as\nalmighty power. Whatever blemishes there are now in the creation, which\nare the consequence of the curse that sin has brought upon it, these\nwere not in it at first, for that would have been a reflection on the\nauthor of it.\n\nAnd there is another thing, in which the goodness of those things did\nconsist, namely, as they were adapted to shew forth the glory of God in\nan objective way, whereby intelligent creatures might, as in a glass,\nbehold the infinite perfections of the divine nature, which shine forth\ntherein.\n\nIf any enquire, whether God could have made things more perfect than he\ndid? it might easily be replied to this, that he never acted to the\nutmost of his power, the perfections of creatures were limited by his\nwill; nevertheless, if any persons pretend to find any flaw, or defect\nof wisdom in the creation of all things, this is no other than a proud\nand ignorant cavil, which men, through the corruption of their nature,\nare disposed to make against the great Creator of all things, who regard\nnot the subserviency of things to answer the most valuable ends, and\nadvance his glory, who, _in wisdom has made them all_.\n\nIn this respect, the inferior parts of the creation were good; but, if\nwe consider the intelligent part thereof, angels and men, they were\ngood, in a higher sense. As there was no moral blemish in the creation,\nnor propensity, or inclination to sin, so these were endowed with such a\nkind of goodness, whereby they were fitted to glorify God, in a way\nagreeable to their superior natures, and behold and improve those\ndisplays of the divine perfections, which were visible in all his other\nworks; which leads us farther to consider what is said concerning them,\nas the most excellent part of the creation.\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n \u05e2\u05e9\u05d5\u05d6, \u05d1\u05e8\u05d0 \u03ba\u03c4\u03b9\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03b3\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9.\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n _Of this opinion was Aristotle, and his followers; though he\n acknowledges, that it was contrary to the sentiments of all the\n philosophers that were before him, Vid. Arist. de C\u0153lo, Lib. I. cap. 2\n who, speaking concerning the creation of the world, says_, \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c6\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n _Tertull. adv. Hermog. cap. 8. H\u00e6reticorum Patriarch\u00e6 Philosophi;\n which was so memorable a passage, that it was quoted, upon the same\n occasion, by Jerom, and others of the fathers._\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n _This was maintained by Aquinas, Durandus, Cajetan, and others; though\n opposed by Albertus Magnus, Bonaventure, &c._\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n _Thus Augustin, speaking concerning the years from the time of the\n creation to his time, reckons them to be not full, that is, almost six\n thousand years; whereas in reality, it was but about four thousand\n four hundred, herein being imposed on by this translation_. Vid. Aug.\n de Civ. Dei. _Lib. XII. Cap. 10._\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n _Every one, that observes the lxx. translation in their chronological\n account of the lives of the patriarchs, from Adam to Abraham, in Gen.\n chap. v. compared with chap. xi. will find, that there are so many\n years added therein to the account of the lives of several there\n mentioned, as will make the sum total, from the creation of the world\n to the call of Abraham, to be between fourteen and fifteen hundred\n years more than the account which we have thereof in the Hebrew text;\n which I rather choose to call a mistake, in that translation, than to\n attempt to defend it; though some, who have paid too great a deference\n to it, have thought that the Hebrew text was corrupted, after our\n Saviour\u2019s time, by the Jews by leaving out those years which the lxx.\n have added, designing hereby to make the world believe that the\n Messiah was not to come so soon as he did, by fourteen or fifteen\n hundred years; and that therefore the Hebrew text, in those places, is\n to be corrected by that version; which I cannot but conclude to be a\n very injurious insinuation, as well as not supported by any argument\n that has the least probability in it._\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n Vid. Pomp. Mel. _Lib. I. Cap. 9. who speaks of the annals of the kings\n of Egypt, as containing above thirteen thousand years; and others\n extend the antiquity of that nation many thousand years more._ Vid.\n Diod. Sicul. Biblioth. _Lib. I._\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n Vid. Cicero de Divinat. _Lib. I. who condemns the Egyptians and\n Babylonians, as foolish, vain, yea impudent, in their accounts\n relating to this matter, when they speak, as some of them do, of\n things done four hundred and seventy thousand years before; upon which\n occasion, Lactantius, in Lib. 7._ \u00a7 14. de Vita beata, _passes this\n just censure upon them_, Quia se posse argui non putabant, liberum\n sibi crediderunt esse mentiri; _and_ Macrob. in somn. Scip. _cap. 11.\n supposes that they did not measure their years as we do, by the annual\n revolution of the sun, but by the moon; and so a year, according to\n them, was no more than a month, which he supposes Virgil was apprised\n of, when he calls the common solar year, Annus Magnus, as compared\n with those short ones that were measured by the monthly revolution of\n the moon: but this will not bring the Egyptians and Chaldean accounts\n to a just number of years, but some of them would, notwithstanding,\n exceed the time that the world has stood. As for the Chinese, they\n have no authentic histories that give any account of this matter; but\n all depends upon uncertain tradition, transmitted to them by those who\n are their leaders in religious matters, and reported by travellers who\n have received these accounts from them, which, therefore, are far from\n deserving any credit in the world._\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n The reader will be highly gratified by a treatise of Dr. Hugh\n Williamson on climate, wherein he examines this subject.\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n _The common distribution of time, into that which is_ \u03b1\u03b4\u03b7\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd, _before\n the flood, and_ \u03bc\u03c5\u03b8\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd, _after it, till they computed by the\n Olympiads; and afterwards that which they call_ \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd _the only\n account to be depended upon, makes this matter farther evident_.\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n _See this argument farther improved, by those who have insisted on the\n first inventors of things; as_ Polydor. Virgil. de Rerum inventoribus;\n _and_ Plin. Secund. Hist. Mundi. _Lib. VII. cap. 56.-60. and Clem.\n Alex. Strom. Lib. I. Lucretius, though an assertor of the eternity of\n matter and motion, from his master Epicurus, yet proves, that the\n world, as to its present form, had a beginning; and what he says is so\n much to our present argument, that I cannot but mention it._ Vid.\n Lucret. de Rer. Nat. _Lib. V._\n\n _Pr\u00e6tera si nulla fuit genitalis origo Terrarum & C\u0153li, semperq;\n \u00e6terna fuere;\n Cur supra bellum Thebanum, & funera Troj\u00e6,\n Non alias alii quoque res cecinere Poet\u00e6?\n Quo tot facta virum toties cecidere? neque usquam\n \u00c6ternis fam\u00e6 monimentis insita florent?\n Verum, ut opinor, habet novitatem Summa, recensq;\n Natura est Mundi, neque pridem exordia cepit.\n Quare etiam qu\u00e6dam nunc artes expoliuntur.\n Nunc etiam augescunt; nunc addita navigiis sunt.\n Multa: modo organici melicos peperere sonores.\n Denique Natura h\u00e6c rerum, ratioque reperta est\n Nuper.\u2014\u2014_\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n _See_ Vol. I. _Pages 220, 221._\n\nFootnote 13:\n\n _See Ray\u2019s Wisdom of God in the Creation, page 182._\n\nFootnote 14:\n\n _Whitby on Election, page 92, 93._\n\nFootnote 15:\n\n _See Turret. Elenct. Tom. I. Loc. 5. Quest. 5._\n\nFootnote 16:\n\n _Vid. Witsii in Symbol. Exercit. 8. \u00a7 66._\n\nFootnote 17:\n\n _This is the main thing that is advanced by Des Cartes, in his\n philosophy, which formerly obtained more in the world than it does at\n present; though there are several divines in the Netherlands, who\n still adhere to, and defend that hypothesis. This was thought a\n sufficient expedient to fence against the absurdities of Epicurus, and\n his followers, who suppose that things attained their respective forms\n by the fortuitous concourse of atoms; nevertheless, it is derogatory\n to the Creator\u2019s glory, inasmuch as it sets aside his immediate\n efficiency in the production of things._\n\nFootnote 18:\n\n _This absurd opinion the Papists are very fond of, inasmuch as it\n serves their purpose in defending the doctrine of Transubstantiation._\n\nFootnote 19:\n\n _Ambrose, in his Hexameron, Lib. II. cap. 3. as well as Basil, and\n others, suppose, that the use thereof is to qualify the extraordinary\n heat of the sun, and other celestial bodies, to prevent their burning\n the frame of nature, and especially their destroying this lower world;\n and others think, that they are reserved in store, to answer some\n particular ends of providence, when God, at any time, designs to\n destroy the world by a deluge; and consequently they conclude, that it\n was by a supply of water from thence, that there was a sufficient\n quantity poured down, when the world was drowned, in the universal\n deluge: but, though a late ingenious writer, [Vid. Burnet. Tellur.\n Theor. Lib. I. cap. 2.] supposes, that the clouds could afford but a\n small part of that water, which was sufficient to answer that end,\n which he supposes to be eight times as much as the sea contains; yet\n he does not think fit to fetch a supply thereof from the\n super-celestial stores, not only as supposing the opinion to be\n ill-grounded, but by being at a loss to determine how these waters\n should be disposed of again, which could not be accounted for any\n other way, but by annihilation, since they could not be exhaled by the\n sun, or contained in the clouds, by reason of their distant situation,\n as being far above them._\n\nFootnote 20:\n\n _It is not_ \u05e2\u05dc \u05ea\u05e7\u05d9\u05e2, _but_ \u05de\u05e2\u05dc \u05dc\u05e8\u05e7\u05d9\u05e2.\n\nFootnote 21:\n\n _See Quest. CV._\n\nFootnote 22:\n\n _Thus the learned Witsius, in Symbol. Exercitat. 8. \u00a7 78. exposes this\n notion, by referring to a particular relation given, by one, of\n mountains, vallies, seas, woods, and vast tracts of land, which are\n contained in the moon, and a describing the men that inhabit it, and\n the cities that are built by them, and other things relating hereunto,\n which cannot be reckoned, in the opinion of sober men, any other than\n fabulous and romantic._\n\nFootnote 23:\n\n _This, supposing the fowl to be produced out of the water, mixed with\n earth, reconciles the seeming contradiction that there is between Gen.\n i, 20. and chap. ii. 19. in the former of which it is said, the fowl\n were created_ out of the water, _and in the latter_, out of the earth.\n\nFootnote 24:\n\n _See Quest. XVII._\n\nFootnote 25:\n\n _When we speak of the season of the year, we have a particular respect\n to that part of the earth, in which man at first resided; being\n sensible that the seasons of the year vary, according to the different\n situation of the earth._\n\nFootnote 26:\n\n _\u2014\u2014Ver illud erat, Ver magnus agebat\n Orbis, & Hybernis parcebant flatibus Euri._\n\n Virg. Georg. 2.\n\n\n\n\n Quest. XVI.\n\n\n QUEST. XVI. _How did God create angels?_\n\n ANSW. God created all the angels, spirits, immortal, holy, excelling\n in knowledge, mighty in power, to execute his commandments, and to\n praise his name, yet subject to change.\n\nThere are two species of intelligent creatures, to wit, angels and men.\nThe former of these are more excellent; and we are in this answer, led\nto speak concerning their nature, and the glorious works which they are\nengaged in: But let it be premised, that this is a doctrine that we\ncould have known little or nothing of, by the light of nature. We might,\nindeed, from thence, have learned, that God has created some spiritual\nsubstances, such as the souls of men; and we might argue, from his\npower, that he could create other spirits, of different natures and\npowers, and that some of them might be without bodies, as the angels\nare; yet we could not have certainly determined that there is such a\ndistinct order of creatures, without divine revelation, since they do\nnot appear to, or visibly converse with us; and whatever impressions\nmay, at any time, be made on our spirits, by good or bad angels, in a\nway of suggestion, yet this could not have been so evidently\ndistinguished from the working of our own fancy or imagination, were we\nnot assisted in our conceptions about this matter, by what we find in\nscripture, relating thereunto. Accordingly, it is from thence that the\ndoctrine, which we are entering upon, is principally to be derived; and\nwe shall consider it, as the subject-matter of this answer, in seven\nheads.\n\nI. There is something supposed, namely, that there are such creatures as\nangels. This appears, from the account we have of them in the beginning\nof the creation of all things, _The morning stars sang together, and all\nthe sons of God shouted for joy_, Job xxxviii. 7. which can be no other\nthan a metaphorical description of them. They are called the _morning\nstars_, as they exceed other creatures, as much in glory, as the stars\ndo the lower parts of the creation. It would be a very absurd method of\nexpounding scripture to take this in a literal sense, not only because\nthe stars in the firmament do not appear to have been then created, but\nprincipally because these are represented, as engaged in a work peculiar\nto intelligent creatures; and they are called, the _sons of God_, as\nthey were produced by him, and created in his image; whereas men, who\nare sometimes so called, were not created. They are elsewhere called\n_spirits_, Psal. civ. 4. to distinguish them from material beings; and\n_a flame of fire_, to denote their agility and fervency, in executing\nthe divine commands. It is plain, the Psalmist hereby intends the\nangels; and therefore the words are not to be translated, as some do,\n_who maketh the winds his angels, and the flame of fire his ministers_,\nas denoting his making use of those creatures who act without design to\nfulfil his pleasure; because the apostle, to the Hebrews, chap. i. 7.\nexpressly applies it to them, and renders the text in the same sense as\nit is in our translation. They are elsewhere styled, _Thrones,\ndominions, principalities, and powers_, Coloss. i. 16. to denote their\nbeing advanced to the highest dignity, and employed in the most\nhonourable services. And that it is not men that the apostle here speaks\nof, is evident, because he distinguishes the intelligent parts of the\ncreation into visible and invisible; the visible he speaks of in the\nfollowing words, ver. 18. in which Christ is said to be _the Head of the\nbody, the church_; therefore here he speaks of invisible creatures\nadvanced to these honours, and consequently he means hereby the angels.\n\nMoreover it appears, that there are holy angels, because there are\nfallen angels, who are called in scripture, devils; this is so evident,\nthat it needs no proof; the many sins committed by their instigation,\nand the distress and misery which mankind is subject to, by their means,\ngives occasion to their being called, _The rulers of the darkness of\nthis world_, Eph. vi. 12. And, because of their malicious opposition to\nthe interest of Christ therein, _spiritual wickedness in high places_.\nNow it appears, from the apostle Jude\u2019s account of them, that they once\nwere holy; and they could not be otherwise, because they are creatures,\nand nothing impure can proceed out of the hand of God, and, while they\nwere holy, they had their residence in heaven: This they lost, and are\nsaid _not to have kept their first estate, but left their own\nhabitation_, being thrust out of it, as a punishment due to their\nrebellion, and to be _reserved in everlasting chains, under darkness,\nunto the judgment of the great day_, Jude, ver. 6. Now it is plain, from\nscripture, that it is only a part of the angels that left their first\nestate; the rest are called _holy angels_, and their number is very\ngreat. Thus they are described, as _an innumerable company_, Heb. xii.\n22. This is necessary to be observed against the ancient, or modern\nSadducees, who deny that there are either angels, or spirits, whether\ngood or bad.\n\nII. We farther observe, that the angels are described, as to their\nnature, as incorporeal, and therefore called spirits. It is but a\nlittle, indeed, that we can know concerning the nature of spirits, in\nthis present state; and the first ideas that we have concerning them,\nare taken from the nature of our souls, as, in some respects, agreeing\nwith that of angels. Accordingly, being spirits, they have a power of\nthinking, understanding, willing, chusing, or refusing, and are the\nsubjects of moral government, being under a law, and capable of moral\ngood or evil, happiness or misery.\n\nMoreover, they have a power of moving, influencing, or acting upon\nmaterial beings, even as the soul moves and influences the body, to\nwhich it is united. This we understand concerning the nature and power\nof angels, as spirits, by comparing them with the nature of the soul;\nthough there is this difference between them, that the souls of men are\nmade to be united to bodies, and to act by and upon them, whereas angels\nare designed to exist and act without bodies; nevertheless, by the\nworks, which are often, in scripture ascribed to them, it appears that\nthey have a power to act upon material beings. As for the conjecture of\nsome of the fathers,[27] that these spirits are united to some bodies,\nthough more fine and subtil than our\u2019s are, and accordingly invisible to\nus, we cannot but think it a groundless conceit; and therefore to assert\nit, is only to pretend to be wise above what is written, and to give too\ngreat a loose to our own fancies, without any solid argument.\n\nIII. It follows, from their being spirits, and incorporeal, that they\nare immortal, or incorruptible, since nothing is subject to death, or\ndissolution, but what is compounded of parts; for death is a dissolution\nof the composition of those parts, that were before united together; but\nthis is proper to bodies. A spirit, indeed, might be annihilated; for\nthe same power that brought it out of nothing, can reduce it again to\nnothing. But, since God has determined that they shall exist for ever,\nwe must conclude that they are immortal, not only from the constitution\nof their nature, but by the will of God.\n\nIV. Besides the excellency of their nature, as spirits, they have other\nsuper-added endowments; of which, _three_ are mentioned in this answer.\n\n1. They were all created holy; and, indeed, it could not be otherwise,\nsince nothing impure could come out of the hands of a God of infinite\npurity. Creatures make themselves sinners, they were not made so by him;\nfor, if they were, how could he abhor sin, and punish it, as contrary to\nhis holiness; nor could he have approved of all his works, as _very\ngood_, when he had finished them, as he did, Gen. i. 31. if he had\ncreated any of the angels in a state of enmity, opposition to, or\nrebellion against him.\n\n2. They excel in knowledge, or in wisdom, which is the greatest beauty\nor advancement of knowledge. Accordingly, the highest instance of wisdom\nin men, is compared to the wisdom of an angel. Thus the woman of Tekoa,\nwhen extolling David\u2019s wisdom, though with an hyperbolical strain of\ncompliment, compares it to that of _an angel of God_, 2 Sam. xiv. 20.\nwhich proves that it was a generally received opinion, that angels\nexceeded other creatures in wisdom.\n\n3. They are said to be mighty in power: thus the Psalmist speaks of\nthem, as _excelling in strength_, Psal. ciii. 20. and the apostle Paul,\nwhen speaking of Christ\u2019s being revealed from heaven, in his second\ncoming, says, that it shall be _with his mighty angels_, 2 Thess. i. 7.\nAnd, since power is to be judged of by its effects, the great things,\nwhich they are sometimes represented, as having done in fulfilling their\nministry, in defence of the church, or in overthrowing its enemies, is a\ncertain evidence of the greatness of their power. Thus we read of the\nwhole Assyrian host, consisting of _an hundred and fourscore and five\nthousand men_, being destroyed in one night; not by the united power of\nan host of angels, but by one of them. _The angel of the Lord_ did it;\nbut this will more evidently appear, when, under a following head, we\nspeak of the ministry of angels.\n\nV. These natural, or super-added endowments, how great soever they are,\ncomparatively with those of other creatures, are subject to certain\nlimitations: their perfections are derived, and therefore are finite. It\nis true, they are holy, or without any sinful impurity; yet even their\nholiness falls infinitely short of God\u2019s, and therefore it is said\nconcerning him, _Thou only art holy_, Rev. xv. 4. and elsewhere, Job xv.\n15. speaking concerning the angels, who are, by a _metonymy_, called the\nheavens, it is said, they _are not clean in his sight_, that is, their\nholiness, though it be perfect in its kind, is but finite, and therefore\ninfinitely below his, who is infinitely holy.\n\nMoreover, though they are said, as has been before observed, to excel in\nknowledge, we must, notwithstanding, conclude, that they do not know all\nthings; and therefore their wisdom, when compared with God\u2019s, deserves\nno better a character than that of folly, Job iv. 18. _His angels he\ncharged with folly_. There are many things, which they are expressly\nsaid not to know, or to have but an imperfect knowledge of, or to\nreceive the ideas they have of them by degrees: thus _they know not the\ntime of Christ\u2019s second coming_, Matt. xxiv. 36. and they are\nrepresented as enquiring into the great mystery of man\u2019s redemption, or\nas _desiring to look into it_, 1 Pet. i. 12.\n\nAnd to this let me add, that they do not know the hearts of men, at\nleast not in such a way as God is said to _search the heart_, for that\nis represented as a branch of the divine glory, Jer. xvii. 10. 2 Chron.\nvi. 30. And, besides this, it may be farther observed, that they do not\nknow future contingencies, unless it be by such a kind of knowledge, as\namounts to little more than conjecture; or, if they attain to a more\ncertain knowledge thereof, it is by divine revelation. For God\nappropriates this to himself, a glory, from which all creatures are\nexcluded; therefore he says, _Shew the things that are to come_, that\nis, future contingencies, _that we may know that ye are gods_, Isa. xli.\n23. which implies, that this is more than what can be said of any finite\nmind, even that of an angel.\n\nAs to the way of their knowing things, it is generally supposed, by\ndivines, that they know them not in a way of intuition, as God does, who\nis said to know all things in himself, by an underived knowledge; but\nwhatever they know, is either communicated to them, by immediate divine\nrevelation, or else is attained in a discursive way, as inferring one\nthing from another; in which respect, the knowledge of the best of\ncreatures appears to be but finite, and infinitely below that which is\ndivine.\n\nAgain, though they are said to be mighty in power, yet it is with this\nlimitation, that they are not omnipotent. There are some things, which\nare the effects of divine power, that angels are excluded from, as being\ntoo great for them; accordingly they were not employed in creating any\npart of the world, nor do they uphold it; for as it is a glory peculiar\nto God, _to be the Creator of the ends of the earth_, so he, exclusively\nof all others, is said _to uphold all things by the word of his power_.\n\nAnd to this we may add, that we have no ground to conclude, that they\nare employed in the hand of providence, to maintain that constant and\nregular motion, that there is in the celestial bodies, as some of the\nancient philosophers[28] have seemed to assert; for this is the\nimmediate work of God, without the agency of any creature subservient\nthereunto.\n\nAgain, to this let me add, that how great soever their power is, they\ncannot change the heart of man, take away the heart of stone, and give a\nheart of flesh; or implant that principle of spiritual life and grace in\nthe souls of men, whereby they are said to be _made partakers of a\ndivine nature_, or _created in Christ Jesus unto good works;_ for that\nis ascribed to the exceeding greatness of the divine power, and it is a\npeculiar glory belonging to the Holy Spirit, whereby believers are said\nto be born from above; this therefore is too great for the power of\nangels to effect.\n\nVI. We have an account of the work or employment of angels; it is said,\nthey execute the commands of God, and praise his name. The former of\nthese will be more particularly considered, under a following\nanswer,[29] when we are led to speak of their being employed by God, at\nhis pleasure, in the administration of his power, mercy and justice; and\ntherefore we shall now consider them as engaged in the noble and\ndelightful work of praise; they praise his name. For this end they were\ncreated; and, being perfectly holy and happy, they are fitted for, and\nin the highest degree, devoted to this service. This work was begun by\nthem as soon as ever they had a being: _they sang together_, and\ncelebrated his praise in the beginning of the creation, Job xxxviii. 7.\n\nAnd when the Redeemer first came into this lower world, and thereby a\nwork, more glorious than that of creation, was begun by him, they\ncelebrated his birth with a triumphant song; as it is said, that with\nthe angel that brought the tidings thereof to the shepherds, there was a\n_multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God\nin the highest; on earth peace; good will towards men,_ Luke ii. 14.\nWhether all the hosts of heaven were present at that solemnity, we know\nnot; but there is sufficient ground to conclude, from the harmony that\nthere is in the work and worship of the heavenly inhabitants, that they\nall celebrated his incarnation with their praises; and this was a part\nof that worship, which, upon this great occasion, they gave, by a divine\nwarrant, to him, who was then brought into this lower world, Heb. i. 6.\n\nMoreover, they praise God for particular mercies vouchsafed to the\nchurch, and for the success of the gospel in the conversion of sinners\nthereby; on which occasion, they express their joy as our Saviour\nobserves, though it be but _one sinner that repenteth_, Luke xv. 7, 10.\nAnd,\n\n_Lastly_, They are represented, as joining in worship with the saints in\nheaven; for which reason the apostle, speaking concerning the communion\nthat there is between the upper and the lower world, as well as the\nunion between the saints departed, and the angels, in this work of\npraise, says, _Ye are come unto the innumerable company of angels, to\nthe general assembly and church of the first-born, which are written in\nheaven, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,_ Heb. xii. 22, 23.\nand they are also represented as joining with all others, which are\n_before the throne, the number of whom is ten thousand times ten\nthousand, and thousands of thousands, saying, with a loud voice, Worthy\nis the Lamb that was slain, to receive power, and riches, and wisdom,\nand strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing,_ Rev. v. 11, 12.\n\nThis is a branch of that social worship, which they are engaged in; and\nsince we cannot suppose that it is performed without harmony, otherwise\nit wants a very considerable circumstance, necessary to render it\nbeautiful, and becoming a state of perfection, we must conclude, that\nthere is the greatest order among these heavenly ministers; but whether\nthey are to be considered, as having a government, or hierarchy, among\nthemselves, so that one is superior in office and dignity to others; or\nwhether they have a kind of dominion over one another; or whether some\nare made partakers of privileges, that others are deprived of; this we\npretend not to determine, since scripture is silent as to this matter.\nAnd what some have laid down, as though it were deduced from it, is\naltogether inconclusive; and therefore they, who express themselves so\nperemptorily on this subject, as though they had received it by divine\ninspiration, or were told it by some, who have been conversant among\nthem in heaven, must be reckoned among them, whom the apostle speaks of,\nwho _intrude into those things which they have not seen, vainly puft up\nby their fleshly mind_, Colos. ii. 18.\n\nThe Papists are very fond of this notion, as being agreeable to that\nunscriptural hierarchy, which they establish in the church here on\nearth, which they pretend to be, in some respects, founded upon it,\ninstead of better arguments to support it[30]. All the countenance which\nthey pretend to be given to it, in scripture, is taken from the various\ncharacters, by which they are described, as _cherubim_, _seraphim_,\n_thrones_, _dominions_, _principalities_, _powers_, _angels_,\n_arch-angels_, all which expressions they suppose to signify various\nranks and orders among them; and when they speak of three classes, or\ndegrees of dignity, and office, under which they are distributed, and\nthat some of those characters are reduced to one, and others to another\nof them, this is nothing else but to impose their own chimerical\nfancies, as matters of faith; and when they speak of some of them, as\nbeing of a superior order, and admitted to greater honours than the\nrest, whom they compare to ministers of state, who always attend the\nthrone of princes, or stand in their presence; and others that are\nemployed in particular services for the good of the church, and are\nconversant in this lower world: This is a distinction which the\nscripture says nothing of; for they all behold the face of God in\nheaven, and are in his immediate presence; and they are all likewise\ncalled _ministering spirits, sent forth to minister to them which shall\nbe the heirs of salvation_.\n\nThe great oracle which they have recourse to, where the scripture is\nsilent, is a spurious writing, that goes under the name of Dionysius,\nthe Areopagite, concerning the celestial hierarchy[31]; which contains\nnot only many things fabulous, but unworthy of him, who was converted at\nAthens by the apostle Paul\u2019s ministry, Acts xvii. 34. as well as\ndisagreeable to the sentiments of the church in the age in which he\nlived; therefore, passing by this vain and trifling conjecture, all that\nwe can assert, concerning this matter, is, that there is a beautiful\norder among the angels, though not of this kind; and this appears very\nmuch in that social worship, which is performed by them.\n\nAnd this leads us to enquire how they communicate their ideas to each\nother, though destitute of organs of speech, like those that men have.\nThat they do, some way or other, impart their minds to one another, is\nsufficiently evident, otherwise we cannot see how they could join\ntogether, or agree in that worship, which is performed by them, and\nthose united hallelujahs, with which they praise God, and so answer the\nend of their creation. That they converse together is evident, since\nthey are represented as doing so, in several places of scripture: thus\nthe prophet speaks of the angel that _talked with him_; he _went forth,\nand another angel went out to meet him_, Zech. ii. 3. and elsewhere it\nis said, concerning them, that one cried to another, _Holy, holy, holy,\nis the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory_, Isa. vi. 3.\nand the apostle John speaks of _an angel ascending from the east, who\ncried with a loud voice to four_ other _angels_, Rev. vii. 2, 3. who\nwere performing a part of their ministry here on earth, and giving them\na charge relating thereto; and elsewhere he again represents one angel\nas speaking to another, and _crying with a loud voice_, &c. chap. xix.\n17. In some of these instances, if the voices uttered by them were real,\nthis may be accounted for, by supposing that they assumed bodies for the\nsame purpose, and so communicated their minds to each other, in a way\nnot much unlike to what is done by man. But this is not their ordinary\nway of conversing with each other: notwithstanding, we may, from hence,\ninfer, and from many other scriptures, that might be brought to the same\npurpose, that there is some way or other by which they communicate their\nthoughts to one another. How this is done, is hard to determine; whether\nit be barely by an act of willing, that others should know what they\ndesire to impart to them or by what other methods it is performed; it is\nthe safest way for us, and it would be no disparagement were we the\nwisest men on earth to acknowledge our ignorance of it, rather than to\nattempt to determine a thing so much out of our reach, in this imperfect\nstate, in which we know so little of the nature or properties of\nspirits, especially those that are without bodies. It is therefore\nsufficient for us to conclude, that they converse together, when joined\nin social worship; but how they do this, is altogether unknown to us.\n\nVII. Notwithstanding all the advantages which the angels had from those\nnatural endowments, with which they were created, yet it is farther\nobserved, that they were subject to change. Absolute and independent\nimmutability is an attribute peculiar to God; so that whatever\nimmutability creatures have, it is by his will and power. Some of the\nangels, who were created holy, were not only subject to change, but they\n_kept not their first estate_, Jude, ver. 6. and, from being the sons of\nGod, became enemies and rebels; which is an evident proof of the natural\nmutability of creatures, if not confirmed in a natural state of holiness\nand happiness; and we have ground to conclude, from hence, that the rest\nmight have fallen, as well as they, had they not been favoured with the\ngrace of confirmation, which rendered their state of blessedness\nunchangeable. But this will be farther considered, under a following\nanswer[32].\n\nFootnote 27:\n\n _Vid. Augustin. de Civ. Dei, Lib. XV. cap. 23. Tertull. de\n Idololatria, & alibi passim._\n\nFootnote 28:\n\n _This was the opinion of Aristotle, though he does not call them\n angels, but intelligent Beings, for angel is a character belonging to\n them, derived only from scripture; neither do we find that this work\n is assigned to them, as a part of their ministry therein._\n\nFootnote 29:\n\n _See Quest. XIX._\n\nFootnote 30:\n\n _It is strenuously maintained, by Baronius, Bellarmine, and many other\n writers; as also by many of the schoolmen, as Durandus, Tho. Aquinas,\n and others._\n\nFootnote 31:\n\n _This book is sufficiently proved to be spurious, and not to have been\n known in the four or five first ages of the church, as not being\n mentioned by Jerom, Gennadius, and others, who make mention of the\n writers of their own and former ages, and pass their censures on them,\n as genuine or spurious. And, from others of the Fathers, who lived in\n those centuries, it plainly appears, that the doctrines maintained in\n this book, concerning the celestial hierarchy, were not then known by\n the church. It is also proved to be spurious, because the author\n thereof makes mention of holy places, such as temples, altars, &c. for\n divine worship, and catechumens, and the like, and many other things,\n unknown to the church till the fourth century; and he uses the word\n Hypostases to signify the divine Persons, which was not used till\n then. He also speaks of the institution of monks, and various sorts of\n them, which were not known till long after the apostolic age; yea, he\n quotes a passage out of Clemens Alexandrinus, who lived in the third\n century. These, and many other arguments, to the same purpose, are\n maintained, not only by Protestants, but some impartial Popish\n writers, which sufficiently prove it spurious. See Dall\u00e6us De Scrip.\n Dionys. Areop. and Du Pin\u2019s history of ecclesiastical writers, Cent.\n 1. Page 32-34._\n\nFootnote 32:\n\n _See Quest. XIX._\n\n\n\n\n Quest. XVII.\n\n\n QUEST. XVII. _How did God create man?_\n\n ANSW. After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male\n and female, formed the body of the man of the dust of the ground,\n and the woman of the rib of the man; endued them with living,\n reasonable, and immortal souls, made them after his own image, in\n knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, having the law of God\n written in their hearts, and power to fulfil it, with dominion over\n the creatures, yet subject to fall.\n\nIn this answer it is observed,\n\nI. That man was created after all other creatures. There was a sort of\n_climax_, or gradation in the work of creation; and that the wisdom and\npower of God might be more admired herein, he proceeded from things that\nwere less to those that were more perfect. Man, who is the most\nexcellent creature in this lower world, was framed the last, inasmuch as\nGod designed hereby not only to give a specimen of his power, wisdom,\nand goodness, but that the glory of those perfections, which shine forth\nin all his other works, might be adored and magnified by him, as a\ncreature fitted for that purpose. And his being created after all other\nthings, is not only an instance of the bounty and goodness of God, in\nthat the world, which was designed to be the place of his abode, should\nbe stored with all those provisions that were necessary for his\nentertainment and delight; but that he might hereby be induced to give\nhim the glory that was due to his name, and all other creatures, that\nwere formed before him, might be objects leading him to it.\n\nII. As to what concerns the difference of sex, it is farther observed,\nthat man was made male and female. Adam was first formed, concerning\nwhom we read, which is an humbling consideration, that his _body was\nformed of the dust of the ground_, from whence he took his name. This\nGod puts him in mind of, after his fall, when he says, _Dust thou art_,\nGen. iii. 19. And the best of men have sometimes expressed the low\nthoughts they have of themselves, by acknowledging this as the first\noriginal of the human nature. Thus Abraham, when standing in the\npresence of God, says, _I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord,\nwhich am but dust and ashes_, Gen. xviii. 27. And this character is\nconsidered, as universally belonging to mankind, when it is said, _Then\nshall the dust return to the earth, as it was_, Eccles. xii. 7.\n\nAs for the woman, it is said, she was formed of the rib of the man. The\nreason of her formation is particularly assigned, _It is not good that\nthe man should be alone, I will make him an help-meet for him_, Gen.\niii. 18. There was a garden planted for his delight, and the beasts of\nthe earth brought, and given, to him, as his property; and his\nsovereignty over them was expressed by his giving names to every living\ncreature: But these were not fitted to be his companions, though\ndesigned for his use. He was, notwithstanding, alone; therefore God,\ndesigning him a greater degree of happiness, formed one that might be a\npartner with him, in all the enjoyments of this life, that hereby he\nmight experience the blessings of a social life; and that, according to\nthe laws of nature, by this means the world might be inhabited, and its\nCreator glorified, by a numerous seed, that should descend from him.\n\nFrom Adam\u2019s being first formed, the apostle infers his preeminence of\nsex, 1 Tim. ii. 11-13. compared with 1 Cor. xi. 8, 9. though not of\nnature; the woman being, in that respect, designed to be a sharer with\nhim in his present condition, and future expectation. From her being\nformed of a rib, or, as some understand it, out of the side of man, some\ncurious, or over-nice observations have been made, which it is needless\nto mention. The account, which the scripture gives of it, is, that her\nbeing part of himself, argued the nearness of relation, and unalienable\naffection, which ought to be between man and wife, as Adam observed,\n_This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh_, Gen. ii. 23, 24.\nand our Saviour, as referring to the same thing, says, _For this cause\nshall a man leave father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they\ntwain shall be one flesh_, Matth. xix. 5.\n\nIII. The next thing that may be observed, is, that these were the first\nparents of all mankind; for the apostle expressly calls Adam the first\nman, 1 Cor. xv. 45. And this is very agreeable to the account which\nMoses gives of his creation, on the sixth day, from the beginning of\ntime. This is a truth so generally received, that it seems almost\nneedless to insist any farther on the proof thereof. The very heathen,\nthat knew not who the first man was, nor where, or when, he was created,\ndid, notwithstanding, allow, in general, that there was one, from whom\nall descended; therefore, when the apostle Paul argued with them, that\n_God had made of one blood all nations of men, for to dwell on all the\nface of the earth_, Acts xvii. 26. none of them pretended to deny it.\nAnd, none who own the divine authority of scripture, ever questioned the\naccount which Moses gives hereof, till a bold writer, about the middle\nof the last century, published a book, in which he advanced a new and\nfabulous notion; that there was a world of men who lived before Adam was\ncreated[33], and that these were all heathen; and that Moses speaks of\ntheir creation, as what was many ages before Adam, in Gen. i. and of\nAdam\u2019s in chap. ii. whom he supposes to have been created in some part\nof the world, which was then uninhabited, where he was designed to live,\nand to be the father of the church, which was to descend from him; and,\nbeing so far remote from the rest of mankind, he knew not that there was\nany other men besides himself, till his family increased, and some of\nthem apostatized from the faith; and, in particular, Cain, and his\ndescendents _went out from the presence of the Lord_, and dwelt among\nthem. And whereas Adam is called, by the apostle Paul, _the first man_,\nhe supposes that he is styled so only as contra-distinguished from\nChrist, who is called _the second man_, designing thereby to compare the\nperson, whom he supposes to have been the head of the Jewish church,\nwith him who is the head of the Christian church. And he insists largely\non, and perverts that scripture, in Rom. v. 13. where it is said, _Until\nthe law, sin was in the world_; as though the sense of it were, that\nthere was a sinful generation of men in the world, before God erected\nhis church, and gave laws to it, when he created Adam, as the head and\nfather thereof; whereas the apostle there speaks of sin\u2019s prevailing in\nthe world before the law was given by Moses; and as for the historical\naccount of the creation of man in scripture, it is plain that Moses\nspeaks of the creation of man in general, male and female, Gen. i. 27.\nand, in chap. ii. gives a particular account of the same thing, and\nspeaks of the manner of the formation of Adam and Eve. Besides, when God\nhad created Adam, it is expressly said, in Gen. ii. 5. that _there was\nnot a man to till the ground_, therefore there was no other man living,\nwhich is directly contrary to this chimerical opinion. And, if there had\nbeen a world of men before Adam, what occasion was there for him to be\ncreated out of the dust of the ground? He might have been the father of\nthe church, and yet descended from one that was then in being, in a\nnatural way; or, if God designed that he should live at a distance from\nthe rest of the world, he might have called him from the place of his\nabode, as he afterwards did Abraham, without exerting power in creating\nhim; and he might have ordered him to have taken a wife out of the\nworld, without creating a woman for that purpose.\n\nIt would be too great a digression, nor would it answer any valuable\nend, for me to take notice of every particular argument brought in\ndefence of this notion: but though the book we speak of, be not much\nknown in the world, yet the notion is defended and propagated by many\nAtheists and Deists, who design hereby to bring the scripture-history\nand religion in general into contempt; therefore I am obliged, in\nopposition to them, to answer an objection or two.\n\n_Object. 1._ If Adam was the first man, and his employment was tilling\nthe ground, where had he those instruments of husbandry, that were\nnecessary, in order thereto, and other things, to subserve the various\noccasions of life?\n\n_Answ._ This may easily be answered, by supposing that he had a\nsufficiency of wisdom to find out every thing that was needful for his\nuse and service, whatever improvement might be made in manual arts, by\nfuture ages; but this objection, though mentioned amongst the rest, is\nnot much insisted on. Therefore,\n\n_Object. 2._ There is another objection, which some think a little more\nplausible, taken from what is contained in Gen. iv. where we read of\nCain\u2019s killing his brother Abel, which was a little before the _hundred\nand thirtieth year_ of the world, as appears, by comparing chap. v. 3.\nwith chap. iv. 25, in which it is said, _Adam lived an hundred and\nthirty years, and begat Seth_; upon which occasion, his wife\nacknowledges it as a mercy, that _God had appointed her another seed,\ninstead of Abel, whom Cain slew_. Now, if we observe the consequence of\nthis murder; how Cain, as it is said, in chap. iv. 16. _went out from\nthe presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod_; and, in ver.\n17. that he _built a city, and called the name of it after the name of\nhis son, Enoch_; from whence they infer, that, in a little above _an\nhundred and thirty_ years after the world was created, there were\nseveral colonies settled in places remote from the land of Eden, where\nAdam, and his posterity, dwelt; and the inhabitants of those countries\nwere of a different religion from him, otherwise Cain\u2019s living among\nthem would not be styled, his _going out from the presence of the Lord_.\nAnd it is not said, that Cain peopled that land, but he went there, that\nis, dwelt, amongst the inhabitants thereof; and it must be by their\nassistance that he built this city, inasmuch as it is probable that the\nart of building, at this time, was hardly known by our first parents,\nand their descendants; but they lived, separate from the world, in\ntents, and worshipped God in that way, which they received by divine\nrevelation, being but few in number, while other parts of the world\nmight be as much peopled as they are, at this day.\n\n_Answ._ But to this it may be answered that as this chimerical opinion\nsets aside; or perverts the scripture-account of things, so the\nabsurdity of it may be easily manifested. And,\n\n1. If they suppose that the number of Adam\u2019s posterity were small, and\ninconsiderable, when Cain slew his brother, and built the city\nbefore-mentioned, this will appear to be an ungrounded conjecture, if\nthe blessing, which God conferred on man in his first creation, of\n_increasing, multiplying, and replenishing the earth_, Gen. i. 28. took\nplace, as it doubtless did, and that in an uncommon degree, the\nnecessity of things requiring it; therefore it is not absurd to suppose,\nthat, at least, as many children were generally born at a birth, and in\nas early an age of the mother\u2019s life, as have been, or are, in any\nuncommon instances in latter ages. It is also very probable, that the\ntime of child-bearing continued many years longer than it now doth, in\nproportion to the number of years, in which the life of man exceeded the\npresent standard thereof; and if the age of man was extended to eight or\nnine hundred years, we may conclude that there were but few that died\nyoung. If these things be taken for granted, which seem not, in the\nleast, improbable, any one, who is curious in his enquiries about this\nmatter, and desires to know what a number of people might be born in\n_one hundred and thirty years_, will find it will be so great, that they\nmight spread themselves through many countries, far distant from the\nplace where Adam dwelt; and therefore there is no need to suppose, that\nthose, with whom Cain dwelt in the _land of Nod_, were persons that\nlived before Adam was created. But, that this may more abundantly\nappear, let it be farther considered,\n\n2. That though we read of Cain\u2019s _going out from the presence of the\nLord_, and his dwelling _in the land of Nod_, and _building a city_,\nimmediately after the account of Abel\u2019s death, and therefore it is taken\nfor granted, that this was done soon after, that is, about the _hundred\nand thirtieth year_ of the world; yet there is no account that this was\ndone immediately, or some few years after, in scripture, which contains\nthe history of the life of Cain, in a few verses, without any\nchronological account of the time, when these things were said to be\ndone by him, and therefore it seems probable, that this was done some\nhundreds of years after Cain slew Abel; so that we need not enquire what\na number of persons might be in the world in _one hundred and thirty\nyears_, but in _seven or eight hundred years_, and then the world might\nbe almost as full of people, as it is now at present, and then the\ngreatest part of the world might be also degenerate, and strangers to\nthe true religion; so that Cain might easily be said to go out of the\npresence of the Lord, and choose to live with those that were apostates\nfrom him, and served other gods; therefore no advantage is gained\nagainst the scripture-history by those, who in contempt of it, defend\nthis ill-grounded opinion.\n\nThus we have considered man, as created male and female, and our first\nparents, as the common stock, or root, from whence all descended; we\nshall now take a view of the constitution, or frame of the human nature,\nand consider,\n\nIV. The two constituent parts of man, namely, the soul and body. With\nrespect to the former of these, he is, as it were allied to angels, or,\nto use the scripture-expression, _made a little lower_ than them, Psal.\nviii. 5. As to the other, which is his inferior part, to wit, the body,\nhe is _of the earth, earthy_, and set upon a level with the lower parts\nof the creation. And here we shall,\n\n1. Consider the body of man, inasmuch as it was first formed before the\nsoul; and according to the course and laws of nature, it is first\nfashioned in the womb, and then the soul is united to it, when it is\norganized, and fitted for its reception: There are many things very\nwonderful in the structure of human bodies, which might well give\noccasion to the inspired writer to say, _I am fearfully and wonderfully\nmade_, Psal. cxxxix. 14. This is a subject that would afford us much\nmatter to enlarge on, and from thence, to take occasion to admire the\nwisdom and goodness of God in this part of his work.\n\nMany things might be observed from the shape, and erect posture thereof,\nand the several conveniences that arise from thence, and how we are\nhereby instructed that we were not born to look downwards to the earth,\nbut up to heaven, from whence our chief happiness is derived. We might\nhere consider the various parts of the body, whereof none are\nsuperfluous or redundant, and their convenient situation for their\nrespective uses; the harmony and contexture thereof, and the\nsubserviency of one part to another; and particularly, how it is so\nordered by the wisdom of the Creator, that those parts, which are most\nnecessary for the preservation of life, which, if hurt, would occasion\nimmediate death, are placed most inward, that they might be sufficiently\ndefended from all external injuries that might befal them; and also the\ndisposition of those parts, that are the organs of sense, and their\ncontexture, whereby they are fitted to exert themselves, in such a way,\nas is most proper to answer the ends thereof. We might also consider the\ntemperature of the body, whereby its health and vigour is maintained;\nand that vast variety that there is in the countenances, and voices of\nmen, in which there is hardly an exact similitude in any two persons in\nthe world; and the wise end designed by God herein, for the advantage of\nmankind in general; these things might have been particularly insisted\non, and have afforded many useful observations; but to enlarge on this\nhead, as it deserves, would be to divert too much from our present\ndesign; and it will be very difficult for any one to treat on this\nsubject with more advantage than it has been done by several learned and\njudicious writers, being set in a much clearer light than it has been in\nformer ages, by those improvements, which have been lately made in\nanatomy; and it is insisted on so particularly, and with such\ndemonstrative evidence, by them, that I shall rather choose to refer the\nreader to those writings, in which it is contained, than insist on\nit[34].\n\nAll that I shall farther observe is, that there is something wonderful\nin that natural heat that is continued in the bodies of men, for so many\nyears together, and in the motion of the heart, the circulation of the\nblood and juices, the continual supply of animal spirits, and their\nsubserviency to muscular motion: these things, and many other of the\nlike nature, are all wonderful in the bodies of men.\n\nIf it be objected, that there are other creatures, who, in some\nrespects, excel men, as to what concern their bodies, and the powers\nthereof; as the vulture, and many other creatures, in quickness of sight\nand hearing; the dog in the sense of smelling, and many others excel\nthem in strength and swiftness; and some inanimate creatures, as the\nsun, and other heavenly bodies, in beauty.\n\nTo this it may be answered: That the bodies of men must be allowed to\nhave a superior excellency, if considered as united to their souls, and\nrendered more capable of glorifying God, and enjoying that happiness,\nwhich no creatures, below them, are capable of. It is true, man is not\nendowed with such quickness of sense, strength of body, and swiftness of\nmotion, as many other creatures are; some of which endowments tend to\nthe preservation of their own lives: others are conducive to the\nadvantage of man, who has every thing, in the frame of his nature,\nnecessary to his happiness, agreeable to his present station of life,\nfor his glorifying God, and answering higher ends than other creatures\nwere made for; so that if we judge of the excellencies of the human\nnature, we must conceive of man, more especially as to that more noble\npart of which he consists. Accordingly,\n\n2. We shall consider him as having[35] a rational and immortal soul,\nwhich not only gives a relative excellency to the body, to which it is\nunited, and, by its union therewith, preserves it from corruption, but\nuses the various organs thereof, to put forth actions, which are under\nthe conduct of reason; and that which renders it still more excellent,\nis, that it is capable of being conversant about objects abstracted from\nmatter, and of knowing and enjoying God. And whatsoever obstructions it\nmay meet with from the temperament of the body, to which it is united,\nor what uneasiness soever it may be exposed to from its sympathy\ntherewith; yet none of those things, which tend to destroy the body, or\nseparate it from the soul, can affect the soul so far, as to take away\nits power of acting, but when separate from it, it remains immortal, and\nis capable of farther improvements, and a greater degree of happiness.\n\nWe might here proceed to prove the immortality of the soul; but that we\nshall have occasion more particularly to do, under a following\nanswer[36], when we consider the souls of believers, as made perfect in\nholiness, and thereby fitted for, and afterwards received into heaven,\nhaving escaped the grave, (in which the body is to be detained until the\nresurrection) which is the consequence of its immortality. And therefore\nwe proceed,\n\nV. To consider another excellency of the human nature, as man was made\nafter the image of God. To be made a little lower than the angels, as\nhe is represented by the Psalmist, in Psal. viii. 5. is a very great\nhonour conferred on him: But what can be said greater of him, than\nthat he was made after the image of God? However, though this be a\nscripture-expression, denoting the highest excellency and privilege,\nyet it is to be explained consistently with that infinite distance\nthat there is between God and the creature. This glorious character,\nput upon him does not argue him to partake of any divine perfection;\nnor is it inconsistent with the nothingness of the best of finite\nbeings, when compared with God; for whatever likeness there is in man\nto him, there is, at the same time, an infinite dissimilitude, or\ndisproportion, as was before observed, when we considered the\ndifference between those divine attributes, which are called\nincommunicable, from others, which some call communicable.\n\nIf it be enquired, wherein the image of God in man consists? It would be\npreposterous and absurd, to the last degree, to suppose that this has\nany respect to the lineaments of the body; for there is a direct\nopposition rather than similitude, between the spirituality of the\ndivine nature, and the bodies of men. And, indeed, it would have been\nneedless to have mentioned this, had not some given occasion for it, by\nperverting the sense of those scriptures, in which God is represented,\nin a metaphorical way, in condescension to our common mode of speaking,\nas though he had a body, or bodily parts; from whence they have\ninferred, that he assumed a body, at first, as a model, according to\nwhich he would frame that of man; which is not only absurd, but\nblasphemous, and carries it own confutation in it.\n\nThere are others, who suppose that man was made after the image of\nChrist\u2019s human nature, which, though it doth not altogether contain so\nvile a suggestion as the former, yet it is groundless and absurd,\ninasmuch as Christ was made after the likeness of man, as to what\nconcerns his human nature, Phil. ii. 7. and man, in that respect, was\nnot made after his image.\n\nAnd to this let me add, that when the scripture speaks of man, as made\nafter the image of God, it plainly gives us ground to distinguish\nbetween it and that glory which is peculiar to Christ, who is said not\nonly to be made after his image, but to be the _image of the invisible\nGod_, Col. i. 15. and the _express image of his person_, Heb. i. 3. and\ntherefore that there is, in this respect, such a similitude between the\nFather and Son, as cannot, in any sense be applied to the likeness,\nwhich is said to be between God and the creature.\n\nMoreover, when we speak of man, as made after the image of God, as\nconsisting in some finite perfections communicated to him, we must\ncarefully fence against the least supposition, as though man were made\npartaker of any of the divine perfections. It is true, the apostle\nspeaks concerning believers, as being made _partakers of the divine\nnature_, 2 Pet. i. 4. for the understanding of which we must take heed,\nthat we do not pervert the mind of the Holy Ghost herein; for nothing is\nintended by this expression, in which the image of God is set forth, but\na sanctified nature, or, as I would rather choose to render it, _a\ndivine nature_, derived from, and, in some respects, conformed to him\nbut yet infinitely below him.\n\nThis image of God in man, in this answer, is said to consist\nparticularly in three things.\n\n1. In knowledge. This is what we generally call the natural image of God\nin man, which he is endowed with, as an intelligent creature; not that\nthe degree of knowledge, which the best of men are capable of, contains\nin it any thing properly divine as to its formal nature; for there is a\ngreater disproportion between the infinite knowledge of the divine mind,\nand that of a finite creature, than there is between the ocean and a\ndrop of water: But it signifies, that as God has a comprehensive\nknowledge of all things, man has the knowledge of some things, agreeable\nto his finite capacity, communicated to him; and thus we are to\nunderstand the apostle\u2019s words, when he speaks of man\u2019s being _renewed\nin knowledge, after the image of him that created him_, Col. iii. 10.\n\n2. It consists in righteousness and holiness. This some call the moral\nimage of God in man; or, especially if we consider it as restored in\nsanctification, it may more properly be called his supernatural image,\nand it consists in the rectitude of the human nature, as opposed to that\nsinful deformity and blemish, which renders fallen man unlike to him.\nTherefore we must consider him, at first, as made upright, Eccles. vii.\n29. so that there was not the least tincture, or taint of sin, in his\nnature, or any disposition, or inclination to it; but all the powers and\nfaculties of the soul were disposed to answer the ends of its creation,\nand thereby to glorify God.\n\nAnd to this some add, that the image of God, in man, consisted in\nblessedness; so that as God is infinitely blessed in the enjoyment of\nhis own perfections, man was, in his way and measure, blessed, in\npossessing and enjoying those perfections, which he received from God.\nBut, though this be true, yet I would rather choose to keep close to the\nscripture mode of speaking, which represents the image of God in man, as\nconsisting _in righteousness and true holiness_, Eph. iv. 24.\n\nMan, being thus made after the image of God, is farther said in this\nanswer, to have the law of God written in his heart, and, power to\nfulfil it. Herein God first made, and then dealt with him as a\nreasonable creature, the subject of moral government; and, that this law\nmight be perfectly understood, it was written on his heart, that hereby\nhe might have a natural knowledge of the rule of his obedience, and\nmight, with as little difficulty, be apprised of his duty to God, as he\nwas of any thing that he knew, as an intelligent creature.\n\nAnd inasmuch as he was indispensably obliged to yield obedience to this\nlaw, and the consequence of violating it would be his ruin, God, as a\njust and gracious Sovereign, gave him ability to fulfil it; so that he\nmight not, without his own fault, by a necessity of nature, rebel\nagainst him, and so plunge himself into inevitable misery.\n\n3. It is farther observed, that the image of God, in man, consisted in\nman\u2019s dominion over the creatures. This is expressly revealed in\nscripture, when God says, _Let us make man in our image, after our\nlikeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over\nthe fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and\nover every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth_, Gen. i. 26. and\nthe Psalmist describes this dominion in other words, though not much\ndiffering, as to the general import thereof, when he says, _Thou madest\nhim to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all\nthings under his feet: All sheep and oxen; yea, and the beasts of the\nfield, the fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever\npasseth through the paths of the seas_, Psal. viii. 6-8. This dominion\nconsisted in the right which he had to use and dispose of the inferior\ncreatures, for his comfort and delight, and to serve him, in all things\nnecessary, for the glorifying his Creator, though he had no right, nor\ninclination, in his state of integrity, to abuse them, as fallen man\ndoes, in various instances.\n\nVI. The last thing observed in this answer, is that notwithstanding the\nadvantageous circumstances, in which man was created, yet he was subject\nto fall; by which we are not to understand that he was forced or\ncompelled to fall, through any necessity of nature; for that would have\nbeen inconsistent with the liberty of his will to what was good, or that\nrectitude of nature, whereby he was not only fitted to perform perfect\nobedience, but to avoid every thing that has a tendency to render him\nguilty before God, and thereby to ruin him.\n\nAs for the devil, he had no power to force the will; nor could he lay\nany snare to entangle and destroy man, but what he had wisdom enough,\nhad he improved his faculties as he ought, to have avoided: But,\nnotwithstanding all this, it is evident that he was subject to fall, for\nthat appears by the event; so that, though he had no disposition to sin\nin his nature, for God could not create a person in such a state, since\nthat would render him the author of sin, yet he did not determine to\nprevent it; though this, as will be hereafter considered, was a\nprivilege which man would have attained to, according to the tenor of\nthe covenant he was under, had he performed the conditions thereof, and\nso would have been confirmed in holiness and happiness; but this, it is\ncertain, he was not at first, because he fell: But of this, more under a\nfollowing answer.\n\nFootnote 33:\n\n _This book, which is called, Systema Theologicum, in which this matter\n is pretended to be defended, was published by one Peirerius, about the\n middle of the last century; and, being written in Latin, was read by a\n great many of the learned world: And, inasmuch as the sense of many\n scriptures is strained by him to defend it, and hereby contempt was\n cast upon scripture in general, and occasion given to many, who are so\n disposed, to reproach and burlesque it; therefore some have thought it\n worth their while to take notice of, and confute this new doctrine;\n after which, the author thereof, either being convinced of his error\n thereby, as some suppose, or being afraid lest he should suffer\n persecution for it, recanted his opinion, and turned Papist._\n\nFootnote 34:\n\n _See Ray\u2019s wisdom of God, in the work of creation, Part. II. and\n Derham\u2019s Physico. Theology, Book V._\n\nFootnote 35:\n\n The _Origin_ of the soul, at what time it enters into the body,\n whether it be _immediately_ created at its entrance into the body, or\n comes out of a _pre-existent state_, are things that cannot be known\n from any fitness or reasonableness founded in the nature of things;\n and yet it is as necessary to believe this is done according to\n _certain reasons_ of wisdom and goodness, as to believe there is a\n God.\n\n Now, who can say that it is the same thing, whether human souls are\n created _immediately_ for human bodies, or whether they come into them\n out of some _pre-existent state?_ For aught we know, one of these ways\n may be exceeding _fit_ and _wise_, and the other as entirely _unjust_\n and _unreasonable_; and yet, when Reason examines either of these\n ways, it finds itself _equally perplexed_ with difficulties, and knows\n not which to chuse: but if souls be immaterial [as all philosophy now\n proves] it must be one of them.\n\n And perhaps, the reason why God has revealed so little of these\n matters in holy Scripture itself, is, because any more particular\n revelation of them, would but have perplexed us with greater\n difficulties, as not having capacities or ideas to _comprehend_ such\n things. For, as all our natural knowledge is confined to ideas\n borrowed from _experience_, and the use of our _senses_ about _human\n things_; as Revelation can only teach us things that have some\n likeness to what we already know; as our notions of equity and justice\n are very limited, and confined to certain actions between man and man;\n so, if God had revealed to us more particularly, the origin of our\n souls, and the reason of their state in human bodies, we might perhaps\n have been exposed to greater difficulties by such knowledge, and been\n less able to vindicate the justice and goodness of God, than we are by\n our present ignorance. HUMAN REASON.\n\nFootnote 36:\n\n _See Quest._ lxxxvi.\n\n\n\n\n Quest. XVIII.\n\n\n QUEST. XVIII. _What are God\u2019s works of Providence?_\n\n ANSW. God\u2019s works of Providence are his most holy, wise, and\n powerful preserving and governing all his creatures; ordering them,\n and all their actions, to his own glory.\n\nIn speaking to this answer, we must consider what we are to understand\nby providence in general. It supposes a creature brought into being; and\nconsists in God\u2019s doing every thing that is necessary for the\ncontinuance thereof, and in his ordering and over-ruling second causes,\nto produce their respective effects, under the direction of his infinite\nwisdom, and the influence of his almighty power. It is owing to this\nthat all things do not sink into nothing, or that every thing has what\nit wants to render it fit to answer the end designed in the creation\nthereof. Pursuant to this general description of providence, it may be\nconsidered as consisting of two branches, namely, God\u2019s upholding, or\npreserving, all creatures; and enabling them to act by his divine\nconcourse or influence: and his governing or ordering them, and all\ntheir actions, for his own glory.\n\nI. That God upholds all things. This he is expressly said to do, _by the\nword of his power_, Heb. i. 3. and it may be farther evinced, if we\nconsider that God alone is independent, and self-sufficient, therefore\nthe idea of a creature implies in it dependence; that which depended on\nGod for its being, must depend on him for the continuance thereof. If\nany creature, in this lower world, could preserve itself, then surely\nthis might be said of man, the most excellent part thereof; But it is\ncertain, that man cannot preserve himself; for if he could, he would not\nbe subject to those decays of nature, or those daily infirmities, which\nall are liable unto; and he would, doubtless preserve himself from\ndying, for that is agreeable to the dictates of nature, which would,\nwere it possible for him to do it, prevent itself from being dissolved.\nAnd if man could preserve himself in being, he might, and doubtless,\nwould, by his own skill, maintain himself in a prosperous condition in\nthis world, and always lead a happy life, since this is what nature\ncannot but desire: But, inasmuch as all are liable to the afflictions\nand miseries of this present state, it plainly argues that they are\nunavoidable, and consequently that there is a providence that maintains\nmen, and all other creatures, in that state in which they are.\n\nIn considering the upholding providence of God, we must observe, that it\nis either immediate, or mediate. The former of these consists in his\nexerting that power, by which we live, move, and act, which is sometimes\ncalled the divine manutenency; and this cannot be exerted by a finite\nmedium, any more than that power that brought all things into being.\n\nBut besides this, God is said, according to the fixed laws of nature, to\npreserve his creatures by the instrumentality of second causes. Thus\nlife is maintained by the air in which we breathe, and the food, by\nwhich we are nourished; and every thing that tends to our comfort in\nlife, is communicated to us by second causes, under the influence and\ndirection of providence, to which it is as much to be ascribed, as\nthough it were brought about without means: thus Jacob considers God, as\ngiving him _bread to eat, and raiment to put on_, Gen. xxviii. 20.\nwhatever diligence or industry was used by him to attain them; and God\nis elsewhere said _to give food to all flesh_; Psal. cxxxvi. 25. and,\nconcerning brute creatures, it is said, _These wait all upon thee, that\nthou mayest give them their meat in due season; that thou givest them,\nthey gather; thou openest thy hand, they are filled with good_, Psal.\nciv. 27, 28.\n\nII. God governs all things by his providence, so that nothing happens by\nchance to him. This appears from those admirable displays of wisdom,\nwhich come under our daily observation, in the government of the world.\nMany things are ordered to subserve such ends, as are attained by them\nwithout their own knowledge; as the sun and other heavenly bodies which\nare a common blessing to this lower world; so the rain, the air,\nvapours, minerals, beasts, vegetables, and all other creatures, below\nmen, answer their respective ends, without their own design, and not by\nthe will or management of any intelligent creature therefore it must be\nby the direction of providence.\n\nThat there is a providence, that governs the world, is so obvious a\ntruth, that it has been denied by none, but the most stupid part of\nmankind, who wholly abandoned themselves to sensuality and libertinism,\nand hardly owned that there is a God, or such things as moral good or\nevil; and these scarce deserve the name of men.[37] All others, I say,\nhave owned a providence, as what is the necessary consequence of the\nbelief of a God, and therefore it is a doctrine founded in the very\nnature of man; so that the heathen who have had no other light than that\naffords, have expressed their belief of it, and have compared the divine\nBeing to a pilot, who sits at the helm and steers the ship; or to one\nthat guides the chariot where he pleases; or to a general, that marshals\nand gives directions to the soldiers under his command: or to a king,\nthat sits on the throne, and gives laws to all his subjects.\nAccordingly, the apostle Paul, when arguing with the Athenians, from\nprinciples which they maintained, takes it for granted, as what would\nnot be contested by them, that there was a providence, when he says, _In\nhim we live, and move, and have our being_, Acts xvii. 28. And, indeed,\nthis truth appears to have been universally believed, in the world, by\nmen of all religions, whether true, or false. As it is the foundation of\nall true worship; so, that worship, which was performed by the heathen\nas derived partly from the light of nature, and partly from tradition;\nand those prayers, that were directed to God, and altars erected for his\nservice, all argue their belief, not only of God, but of a providence;\nso that this doctrine is agreeable to the light of nature, as well as\nplainly evinced from scripture.\n\nIII. The providence of God extends itself to all the actions of\ncreatures. That this may appear, let it be considered; that there are\ninnumerable effects produced by, what we call, second causes; this is\nallowed by all. Moreover, every second cause implies, that there is a\nfirst cause, that guides and directs it. Now no creature is the first\ncause of any action, for that is peculiar to God, therefore all\ncreatures act under his influence, that is, by his providence. If it is\nin God, not only that we live, but move, and act, then there is no\nmotion, or action in the world, whether in things with, or without life,\nbut is under the influence of providence. Therefore we shall proceed to\nconsider the providence of God, as conversant about all things, the\nleast as well as the greatest, and about things that are agreeable, or\ncontrary to the laws of nature, and particularly how it is conversant\nabout the actions of intelligent creatures, such as angels and men.\n\n1. The greatest things are not above, nor the least and most\ninconsiderable below the care and influence of providence, and\nconsequently it must extend itself to all things. The most excellent of\nfinite beings are but creatures, and therefore they are dependent upon\nGod, as much as the least: thus it is said, _He doth according to his\nwill, in the army of heaven, as well as among the inhabitants of the\nearth_, Dan. iv. 35. Sometimes we read of the providence of God, as\nconversant about the most glorious parts of the frame of nature: it is\nby his influence that the sun appears to perform its regular motions; he\nhath fixed it in the heavens, as in a tabernacle appointed for it. And\nthose creatures that are most formidable to men, as the leviathan, which\nis represented as the fiercest of all creatures, who abide in the sea,\nand the lion of all the beasts of the forest; these are described as\nsubject to his providence, and receiving their provisions from it, Job\nxli. Psal. civ. 21. and the inconsiderable _sparrow_ doth not _fall to\nthe ground_ without it, Matt. x. 29, 30. and the very _hairs of our head\nare all numbered_; which is a proverbial expression, to denote the\nparticular concern of providence, as conversant about the most minute\nactions of life.\n\n2. The providence of God is conversant about those things which come to\npass, either agreeably, or contrary, to the fixed laws of nature, the\nwhole frame whereof is held together by him: the successive returns of\n_seed-time and harvest, summer and winter, day and night_, are all\nordered by him, Gen. viii. 22. the elements and meteors are subject to\nhis appointment; _Fire and hail, snow and vapour, and stormy wind,\nfulfil his word_, Psal. cxlviii. 8. _He looketh to the ends of the\nearth, and seeth under the whole heaven, to make the weight for the\nwinds, and he weigheth the waters by measure; when he made a decree for\nthe rain, and a way for the lightning of the thunder_, Job xxviii.\n24-26.\n\nAnd as for effects, that are above, or contrary to the course of nature,\nthese are subject to, and ordered by, his providence. It was contrary to\nthe course of nature for the ravens, which are birds of prey, to bring\nprovisions to mankind, yet these were ordered to bring a supply of food\nto the prophet, Elijah, 1 Kings xvii. 4. And the lions, who knew no\ndifference between Daniel and his persecutors, and were naturally\ninclined to devour one, as well as the other, were obliged to make a\ndistinction between them, and not to hurt the one, but immediately to\ndevour the other, Dan. vi. 22, 24. And a whale was provided, by\nprovidence, to receive and bring the prophet Jonah to land, when cast\ninto the sea, chap. i. 17. So the fire had no power over Shadrach,\nMeshach, and Abed-nego, when thrown into it, but immediately consumed\nthose who were ordered to cast them in, Dan. iii. 22, 27.\n\n3. We shall consider providence, as conversant about intelligent\ncreatures, and more particularly man, the most excellent creature in\nthis lower world. He is, as it were, the peculiar care, and darling of\nprovidence; as it has rendered him capable of enjoying the blessings of\nboth worlds, fitted him to glorify God actively, as well as objectively,\nand governs him in a way suited to his nature, and as one who is\ndesigned for greater things, than other creatures below him are capable\nof. Here we shall consider the providence of God, as ordering the state\nand condition of men in this world, and then speak, more particularly of\nit, as conversant about the moral actions of men, considered as good or\nbad.\n\n_First_, To consider the providence of God, as it respects the state and\ncondition of man in this life; and, in particular, what respects not\nonly his natural, but religious interests.\n\n(1.) There is a peculiar care of providence extended towards us, in our\nbirth and infancy. The Psalmist acknowledges this, when he says. _Thou\nart he that took me out of the womb; thou didst make me hope when I was\nupon my mother\u2019s breasts; I was cast upon thee from the womb; thou art\nmy God from my mother\u2019s belly_, Psal. xxii. 9, 10. Providence has\nprovided the breast, and the most proper food contained therein, for the\nnourishment of the infant, at its first coming into the world; and it\nhas put those tender bowels into the parents, to whose immediate care\nthey are committed, that, without any arguments, or persuasive motives\nthereunto, besides what nature suggests, they cannot, unless divested of\nall humanity, and becoming worse than brutes, neglect and expose it to\nharm. Thus the prophet says, _Can a woman forget her sucking child, that\nshe should not have compassion on the son of her womb?_ Isa. xlix. 15.\nTherefore, be the parents never so poor, there is something in nature\nthat inclines them rather to suffer themselves, than that the helpless\ninfant should be exposed to suffer through their neglect; which is a\npeculiar instance of the care of providence. To this we may add, the\ntime, and place in which we were born, or live; the circumstances of our\nparents, as to what concerns the world, especially if they are such who\nare religious themselves, and earnestly desire that their children may\nbecome so, and endeavour to promote their spiritual, as well as their\ntemporal welfare. These are all instances of the care of providence.\n\n(2.) We shall now consider the concern of providence for man in his\nchildhood, and advancing years. This discovers itself in furnishing us\nwith natural capacities to receive instruction, which are daily\nimproved, as we grow in years; and, though every one has not an equal\ndegree of parts, fitting him for some station in life, that others are\nqualified for, yet most are endowed with that degree thereof, as may fit\nthem for the station of life, in which they are placed, so that they may\nglorify God some way or other, in their generation.\n\n(3.) We shall consider the care of providence, respecting various other\nages and conditions of life. It is this that fixes the bounds of our\nhabitation, determines and over-rules the advantages or disadvantages of\nconversation; the secular callings, or employments, which we are engaged\nin, together with the issue and success thereof. Again, health and\nsickness, riches and poverty, the favour or frowns of men; the term of\nlife, whether long or short, all these are under the direction of\nprovidence: _One dieth in his full strength, being wholly at ease and\nquiet. His breasts are full of milk, and his bones are moistened with\nmarrow. And another dieth in the bitterness of his soul, and never\neateth with pleasure_, Job xxi. 23-25. Likewise, as to what respects the\ninjurious treatment we meet with from men; providence is so far\nconcerned about it, as that it sometimes permits it for the trial of our\ngraces; and at other times averts the evil designed against us, by\nsoftening their tempers, allaying their resentments; as in the instance\nof what respected Laban\u2019s and Esau\u2019s behaviour towards Jacob; or else\nfinds some way to deliver us from the evil intended against us.\n\n(4.) We shall now consider the providence of God, as respecting, more\nespecially, the spiritual concerns of his people. There are some kind\nfoot-steps thereof, that have a more immediate subserviency to their\nconversion; particularly, their being placed under the means of grace,\neither bringing the gospel to them, or ordering their abode where it is\npreached, and that in such a way, as is most adapted to awaken,\ninstruct, convert, or reprove, as means conducive to that great end.\nMoreover, it is very remarkable in casting our lot, where we may\ncontract friendship and intimacy with those, whose conversation and\nexample may be made of use to us, for our conviction, imitation, and\nconversion.\n\nAnd to this let me add, that sometimes there is a peculiar hand of\nprovidence, in sending afflictions, which are sanctified, and rendered\nmeans of grace, and have a tendency to awaken men out of their carnal\nsecurity. This is one way whereby God speaks to man, to _withdraw him\nfrom his purpose, and hide pride from him_, Job xxxiii. 14, 17, 19.\nSometimes God makes his exemplary judgments, that are abroad in the\nworld, effectual to warn others to flee from the wrath to come. And as\nfor the preaching of the gospel, there is a peculiar hand of providence,\nsometimes in giving a suitable word, in which case God often over-rules\nthe thoughts and studies of his ministers; so that they are, as it were,\ndirected without their own forethought relating to this event, to insist\non such a subject, that God designs to make instrumental for the\nconversion of souls. This he sets home on the consciences of men, keeps\nit fixed on the imagination of the thoughts of their hearts, and enables\nthem to improve it to his glory in the conduct of their lives.\n\n_Secondly_, We shall proceed to consider the providence of God, as\nconversant about the actions of men. If other creatures are dependent on\nhim, in acting, as well as existing, then certainly man must not be\nexempted from this dependence. There are several scriptures which speak\nof intelligent creatures, as under the influence of providence. Thus it\nis said, _The king\u2019s heart is in the hand of the Lord; as the rivers of\nwater, he turneth it whithersoever he will_, Prov, xxi. 1. and elsewhere\nthe prophet says, _O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself;\nit is not in man that walketh to direct his steps_, Jer. x. 23. that is,\nhe cannot manage himself in the conduct of life, either as an\nintelligent creature, or as a believer, without supposing the natural or\nspiritual influence of divine providence.\n\nNow these actions are considered as moral, and so agreeable or contrary\nto the divine law, in which different respects they are, either good or\nbad.\n\n(1.) We shall consider the providence of God, as conversant about the\ngood actions of men; and it is so, not only by upholding the powers and\nfaculties of the soul, in acting, or in giving a law, which is the rule\nthereof; nor is it only conversant about them, in an objective way, or\nby moral suasion, as affording rational arguments or inducements\nthereunto, but as implanting and exciting that principle, by which we\nact; especially, as it respects the work of grace in the souls of men,\nwhich is what we call the gracious dispensation of providence, exercised\ntowards men, not barely as intelligent creatures, but as believers. But\nthis we shall not insist on at present, because we shall be led to speak\nto it under some following answers, which more particularly set forth\nthe grace of God as displayed in the gospel. We are now to consider the\nactions of men in a more general view; which, when we style them good,\nit is only as containing in them a less degree of conformity to the\ndivine law; but refer the consideration of the goodness of actions, as\nunder the influence of special grace, to its proper place. All that we\nshall observe at present is, that every thing that is good, in the\nactions of intelligent creatures, is under the direction and influence\nof providence. This does not carry the least appearance of a reflection\non the divine perfections, while we suppose God to be the Governor of\nintelligent creatures, acting as such; and therefore, I presume, it will\nnot be much contested, by any who allow a providence in general. But,\n\n(2.) We shall proceed to consider the providence of God, as conversant\nabout evil actions. This is a subject which contains in it a very great\ndifficulty; for we must use the utmost caution, lest we advance any\nthing that may argue him to be the author of sin; and yet we are not to\nsuppose that the providence of God is to be wholly excluded from those\nactions that are sinful; for there is certainly some meaning in such\nscriptures as these, when God says, concerning Pharaoh, _I will harden\nhis heart_, Exod. iv. 21. and, _Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us\npass by him; for the Lord thy God hardened his heart, and made his heart\nobstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand_, Deut. ii. 30. and\nelsewhere it is said, concerning Shimei, _The Lord said unto him curse\nDavid_, 2 Sam. xvi. 10. and, concerning Joseph\u2019s brethren, who sold him\ninto Egypt, it is said, _It was not you that sent me hither, but God_,\nGen. xlv. 8. and concerning the false prophets that deceived Ahab, it is\nsaid, _The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy\nprophets_, 1 Kings xxii. 22. These, and such-like scriptures, are not to\nbe expunged out of the Bible, but explained in a way consistent with the\ndivine perfections; and nothing can be inferred from them, if this be\nnot, that the providence of God is some way conversant about those\nactions that are sinful; but yet it is not in such a way, as either\nargues him to be the author or approver of sin.[38] Accordingly I would\nchoose to express myself, concerning this matter, to this effect: That\nthe providence of God is conversant about those actions, to which sin is\nannexed, rather than that it is conversant about sin itself, or the\nobliquity, or sinfulness thereof. Now, that we may understand this\nmatter, we must distinguish between what is natural, and what is sinful\nin an action; the former is from God; the latter, from ourselves. This\nis often illustrated by such similitudes as these. The motion of a bowl\nis from the hand that throws it; but the irregularity of the motion is\nfrom the bias that turns it aside. So the motion of a horse is excited\nby the whip, or spur of the rider; but if it goes lame, the defect, or\nhalting that it has in its motion, proceeds from an inward indisposition\nin the horse, and not from the rider. Others illustrate it by a\nsimilitude, taken from the sun\u2019s drawing forth vapours from the earth,\nby that heat, which has a tendency to exhale them; but the stench that\nattends what is exhaled from a dunghill, is not from the sun, but from\nthe nature of the subject from whence it is drawn forth. So the\nprovidence of God enables sinners to act in a natural way; but the\nsinfulness, irregularity, or moral defects, that attend those actions,\nis from the corruption of our own nature: or, to speak more plainly, the\nman that blasphemes, could not think, or utter his blasphemy, without\nthe concurrence of the common providence of God, which enables him to\nthink or speak. These are natural actions; but that the thoughts, or\ntongue, should be set against God, or goodness, that is from the\ndepravity of our nature.\n\nAgain, to kill, or take away the life of a man, is, in some respects, a\nnatural action, as it cannot be done without thought, or strength to\nexecute what we design. These are the gifts of providence, and, in this\nrespect God concurs to the action. Thus Joab could not have killed\nAbner, or Amasa, if he had not had a natural power to use the\ninstrument, with which he did it. This was from God; but the malice,\nthat prompted him to abuse these gifts of providence, and his\nhypocritical subtilty, and that dissimulation, or disguise of\nfriendship, which gave him an opportunity to execute his bloody design,\nwas from the wickedness of his own heart.\n\nThus having considered, that the providence of God may be conversant\nabout that which is natural in a sinful action, without reflecting\ndishonour on him, as the author of sin; we shall now proceed to\nconsider, in what manner it is conversant about such actions, by which\nwe may better understand the sense of those scriptures, which were but\nnow referred to; and, I hope, nothing therein will be accounted\nderogatory to the divine glory, when we observe,\n\n1. That the providence of God may be conversant, in an objective way,\nabout those actions to which sin is annexed, without his being the\nauthor, or approver of it. Sin would not be committed, in many\ninstances, if there were not some objects presented, which give occasion\nthereunto. The object that presents itself may be from God, when the\nsin, which is occasioned thereby, is from the corruption of our nature.\nThus Joseph\u2019s brethren would not have thought of killing, or selling him\ninto Egypt, at least, when they did, if he had not obeyed his father\u2019s\ncommand, in going to deliver his message, and see how it fared with\nthem. Providence ordered his going to enquire of their welfare, and\nhereby the object was presented to them, which their own corrupt nature\ninclined them to abuse; so that, as soon as they saw him, they entered\ninto a conspiracy against him. In the former of these respects, in which\nthe providence of God was thus objectively conversant about this action,\nGod is said to have sent Joseph into Egypt; though every circumstance,\nthat was vile and sinful therein, was from themselves.\n\nAgain, in the instance before mentioned, of Shimei\u2019s cursing David:\nProvidence was conversant about this action, so far, as it ordered that\nDavid should come by at that time when Shimei was there, otherwise he\nwould not have cursed him; and when it is said, in the scripture but now\nmentioned, _The Lord said unto Shimei, Curse David_; the meaning is\nthis; the Lord hath brought me into so low a condition, that the vilest\npersons, who, before this time, were afraid to open their mouths against\nme, now take occasion to give vent to their malicious reproaches, as\nShimei did; the providence of God was conversant about this action, in\nan objective way. Now, what it is so conversant about, that, according\nto the scripture-mode of speaking, God is said to do; as when the\nman-slayer killed one, through inadvertency, who was presented as an\nobject to him, God is said hereby to _deliver him into his hand_, Exod.\nxxi. 13. yet in all sinful actions, God\u2019s presenting the object, does\nnot render him the author of that sin, which is to be ascribed to the\ncorruption of nature, that took occasion to exert itself by the sight of\nit. This will farther appear, if we consider,\n\n(1.) That such an object might have been presented, and the sinful\naction not have ensued hereupon: thus the _wedge of gold, and the\nBabylonish garment_, were no temptation to other Israelites, who saw\nthem _among the spoils of Jericho_, as well as Achan, though they were\nso to him, through the covetousness of his own temper, and the\ncorruption of his nature, that discovered itself, and internally moved\nhim to this sinful action.\n\n(2.) Such objects are not presented by providence, as designing hereby\nto ensnare, or draw persons to sin, though God knows that they will take\noccasion to sin thereby; but there are other ends of their being\npresented, which may be illustrated by a particular instance. God knows,\nthat if the gospel be preached, some will take occasion to reproach it:\nHe orders, notwithstanding, that it shall be preached; not that men\nmight take occasion to do this, but that those, whom he has ordained to\neternal life might be converted by it. So our Saviour appeared publickly\nat the feast of the passover, though he knew that the Jews would put him\nto death; the end of his going to Jerusalem was not that he might draw\nforth their corruption, but that he might finish the work, which he came\ninto the world about: He was at that time engaged in his Father\u2019s work,\nbut they performed that which they were prompted to do, by satan and\ntheir own wicked hearts.\n\n2. When the providence of God is said to be conversant about sin, it is\nin suffering or permitting it, not in suggesting, or tempting to it; for\nno one ought to say, as the apostle James expresses it, _When he is\ntempted, that he is tempted of God; for God cannot tempt any man_; but,\nwhen he is tempted, _he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed_,\nchap. i. 13, 14. But, so far as the providence of God denies restraining\ngrace, from whence corrupt nature takes occasion to break forth, it is\nconversant about sin occasionally, not effectually; as when the banks,\nor flood-gates, that keep the waters within their due bounds, are broken\ndown, by the owner thereof, who does not think fit to repair them, the\nwaters will, according to the course of nature, overflow the country; or\nif the hedge, or inclosure, that secures the standing corn, be taken\naway, the beasts, by a propensity of nature, will tread it down, and\ndevour it; so if that which would have a tendency to restrain, or\nprevent sin, be taken away, it will be committed; and the providence of\nGod may do this, either in a way of sovereignty, or as a punishment for\nformer sins committed, without being charged as the author of sin. It is\nnot the same, in this case, as when men do not prevent sin in others,\nwhen it is in their power to do it, since they are under an obligation\nhereunto: But God is under no obligation to extend this privilege unto\nsinful men; and sometimes he suffers that wrath, which he will not\nrestrain, to break forth as having a design, some way or other, to\nglorify himself thereby; as the Psalmist says, _Surely, the wrath of man\nshall praise thee; the remainder of wrath thou shalt restrain_, Psal.\nlxxvi. 10.\n\n3. The providence of God may be said to be concerned about sin, in\nover-ruling it for his own glory, and his people\u2019s good: In the former\ninstances, it discovers itself, before the sin was committed; but, in\nthis, it is consequent thereunto. This is a wonderful instance of his\nwisdom, in that, since the sinner obstinately resolves to rebel against\nhim, this shall not tend to lessen, but to illustrate some of his\nperfections: Thus he over-ruled the wicked action of Joseph\u2019s brethren,\nin their selling him into Egypt, to preserve their lives, in the time of\nfamine; accordingly he says, _God has sent me before you to preserve\nlife_, Gen. xlv. 5. And the vilest action that ever was committed in the\nworld, namely, the crucifying the Lord of glory, was over-ruled, for the\nsaving his people from their sins; and sometimes we read of God\u2019s\npunishing the obstinacy and rebellion of men, by giving courage and\nsuccess to their enemies against them: Thus Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s success in\narms against the Jews, was ordered by the providence of God, to punish\ntheir idolatry; first, by carrying the greatest part of them captive,\nand then, when pursuing those who contrary to God\u2019s order, fled into\nEgypt, by destroying or carrying them captive likewise; and, in doing\nthis, he is called _God\u2019s servant_, Jer. xliii. 10. not as though he had\nany religious regard to the honour and command of God herein; but his\ndesign was only to enlarge his dominions, by depriving others of their\nnatural rights; yet God over-ruled this, for the setting forth the glory\nof his vindictive justice, against a sinful people. And Cyrus, on the\nother hand, was raised up to be Israel\u2019s deliverer from captivity. His\nsuccess in war, which God designed should be subservient thereunto, is\nstyled, _His girding him_, Isa. xlv. 1, 5. and God promises, that he\nwould _loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved\ngates_: And all this was done with a design that he should give liberty\nto his people; though Cyrus had no more religion, nor real regard to the\ninterest of God in the world, than other kings, who design little else\nbut the satisfying their own ambition; for it is expressly said, _Thou\nhast not known me_. God did not approve of that corruption, which might\ngive the first occasion to the war, or that injustice that might appear\nin it: but, notwithstanding, he over-ruled it, to answer the ends of his\nown glory.\n\nIn considering the over-ruling providence of God, in order to the\nbringing about the ends designed, let it be farther observed; that there\nare some things which seem to have a more direct tendency thereunto,\nagreeably to the nature of those second causes, which he makes use of,\nwhereby he gives us occasion to expect the event that will ensue: and,\non the other hand, he sometimes brings about some great and valuable\nends by those means, which at first view, have no apparent tendency\nthereunto; but they are over-ruled without, or contrary to the design of\nsecond causes, wherein the admirable wisdom of providence discovers\nitself. Thus those things, which, in all appearance, seem to threaten\nour ruin, are ordered to subserve our future happiness, though, at\npresent, altogether unexpected. When there was such a dark gloom cast on\nthe world, by the first entrance of sin into it, who would have thought\nthat this should be over-ruled by providence, to give occasion to the\ndisplay of those divine perfections, which are glorified in the work of\nour redemption? I do not, indeed, like the expression of an ancient\nwriter, who calls it, Happy sin! that gave occasion to man\u2019s salvation;\nbut I would rather say, How admirable was the providence of God, which\nover-ruled the vilest action to answer so great an end, and brought so\nmuch good out of that, which, in itself, was so great an evil!\n\nWe might here give some particular instances of the dispensations of\nprovidence, by which God brings good out of evil, in considering those\nlengths which he hath suffered some men to run in sin, whom he designed,\nnotwithstanding, effectually to call and save; of which the apostle Paul\nwas a very remarkable instance, who considers this as an expedient,\nwhereby God designed to _shew forth all long-suffering as a pattern to\nthem, that should hereafter believe on Christ to life eternal_; and that\nmen might take encouragement, from hence, to conclude, that _Christ came\ninto the world to save the chief of sinners_, 1 Tim. i. 15, 16. And the\ninjurious treatment which God\u2019s people have met with from their enemies,\nhas sometimes been over-ruled for their good. Thus Ishmael\u2019s _mocking_,\nor, as the apostle calls it, _persecuting Isaac_; and, as is more than\nprobable, not only reproaching him, but the religion which he professed,\nwas over-ruled, by providence, for Isaac\u2019s good, when Ishmael was\nseparated from him, which set him out of danger of being led aside by\nhis bad example, as well as delivered him from that uneasiness, which\nhis opposition to him would have occasioned: and it was most agreeable\nto his future circumstances, whom God designed not only to be the heir\nof the family, but the propagator of religion in it.\n\nAgain, Pharaoh\u2019s cruelty, and the methods used to prevent the increasing\nof the children of Israel in Egypt, was over-ruled by the providence of\nGod, so that they seemed, after this, to be the more immediate care\nthereof; and it is more particularly remarked in scripture, as an\ninstance of the kind hand of providence towards them, that _the more the\nEgyptians afflicted them, the more they multiplied, and grew_, Exod. i.\n12.\n\nAgain, the inhuman and barbarous cruelty of Simeon and Levi, in slaying\nthe Shechemites, Gen. xxxiv. 25. brought on them a curse; and\naccordingly their father pronounced it, and tells them, that _God would\ndivide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel_, Gen. xlix. 7. which,\nin particular, had its accomplishment in Levi\u2019s having no distinct\ninheritance, except those cities that were appointed to them, out of\nevery tribe; but this dividing and scattering them throughout the whole\ncountry, was over-ruled by the providence of God, for the good of his\npeople in general; so that this tribe, which God had ordained, _to teach\nJacob his judgments, and Israel his law_, Deut. xxxiii. 10. might,\nthrough the nearness of their habitation, be conveniently situated among\nthem to answer that end.\n\nWe might farther observe, that Saul\u2019s unreasonable jealousy and fury,\nwith which he persecuted David, was over-ruled, by providence, for his\ngood; as, in his exile, he had a greater degree of communion with God,\nthan at other times, and, as is more than probable, was inspired to pen\nthe greater number of his Psalms, and was, as it were, trained up for\nthe crown in this school of affliction, and so, more fitted to govern\nIsrael, when God designed to put it on his head.\n\nTo this let me add one instance more, and that is, God\u2019s suffering the\npersecuting rage of the Jews to vent itself against the apostles, when\nthe gospel was first preached by them, which was over-ruled by\nprovidence for their scattering, and this for the farther spread\nthereof, wherever they came; and the apostle Paul observes, that _his\nbonds in Christ were not only manifest in all the palace; and in all\nother places_, but they were made conducive to the _furtherance of the\ngospel_, Phil. i. 12, 13. And as for that contention that was between\nhim and Barnabas, at another time, in which each of them shewed that\nthey were but men, subject to like passions and infirmities with others,\nthis seems to have been occasioned by a small and inconsiderable\ncircumstance, yet it rose to such a height, that _they departed one from\nthe other_, Acts xv. 36-40. Each seemed to be over-much tenacious of his\nown humour; but providence suffered the corruption of these excellent\nmen to discover itself, and their separation to ensue, that by this\nmeans, their ministry might be rendered more extensive, and double\nservice be done to the interest of Christ in different parts of the\nworld.\n\nWe might descend to instances of later date, and consider how God\nsuffered the church of Rome to arrive to the greatest pitch of\nignorance, superstition, and idolatry; and wholly to forsake the faith\nof the gospel, so as to establish the doctrine of merit, and human\nsatisfactions; and its leaders to be so profanely absurd, as to expose\npardons and indulgencies to public sale; this, providence was\nover-ruled, for the bringing about the glorious Reformation in Germany.\nAnd if it be added, that pride, lust, and covetousness, paved the way\nfor it here in England; this is no blemish to the Reformation, as the\nPapists pretend, but a display of the over-ruling providence of God,\nthat brought it about by this means.\n\nI might enlarge on this subject, in considering the providence of God as\nbringing about wonderful and unexpected changes in the civil affairs of\nkingdoms and nations, remarkably bringing down some who made the\ngreatest figure in the world, and putting a glory on others raised up\nout of their ruins; and how all political affairs have been rendered\nsubservient to answer the ends of the divine glory, with respect to the\nchurch in the world, and the deliverances which God has wrought in\nvarious ages for it, when it was, in all appearance, upon the brink of\nruin, of which we have not only many instances in scripture, but almost\nevery age of the world has given us undeniable proofs of this matter. We\nmight also consider the methods which God has often taken in bringing\nabout his people\u2019s deliverance, when, to the eye of reason, it seemed\nalmost impossible, and that, either by dispiriting their enemies, or\nremoving them out of the way, as the Psalmist expresses himself, _The\nstout-hearted are spoiled; they have slept their sleep, and none of the\nmen of might have found their hands_, Psal. lxxvi. 5. or else by finding\nthem some other work to do for their own safety and defence. Thus when\nSaul was pursuing David, in the wilderness of Maon, and had compassed\nhim, and his men round about to take them, there came a messenger to\nhim, saying, _Haste thee and come, for the Philistines have invaded the\nland_, 1 Sam. xxiii. 26, 27. And sometimes he softens their spirits, by\na secret and immediate touch of providence working a change in their\nnatural temper and disposition. Thus he provided for Jacob\u2019s escape from\nthat death that was designed by his brother Esau. And if God intends\nthat they shall fall by the hand of their persecutors, he gives them\ncourage and resolution, together with the exercise of all those graces,\nwhich are necessary to support them under, and carry them through the\ndifficulties that they are to undergo. But these things are so largely\ninsisted on, by those who have written professedly on the doctrine of\nprovidence,[39] that more need not be added on this subject. I shall\ntherefore only consider an objection, or two, that is generally brought\nagainst it, by those who pretend to acknowlege that there is a God, but\ndeny his providence.\n\n_Object. 1._ It is objected against the concern of the providence of\nGod, with respect to the smallest things in this world, that they are\nunworthy of his notice, below his care, and therefore not the objects\nthereof.\n\n_Answ._ If it was not unbecoming his power, to bring the smallest things\ninto being, or to preserve them from sinking into nothing, then they\ncannot be excluded from being the objects of his providence. If we\nconsider the whole frame of nature; it cannot be denied, but that some\nthings have a tendency to answer the general design of providence, in a\nmore evident degree than others, and there are many things, the use\nwhereof cannot be particularly assigned by us, otherwise than as they\ncontain a small part of the frame of nature. But to say, that any part\nthereof is altogether useless, or excluded from being the object of\nprovidence, is a reflection on God, as the God of nature. And therefore\nwe must conclude, that all things are some way or other, subject to his\nprovidence; and that this is so far from being a dishonour to him, that\nit redounds to his glory.\n\n_Object. 2._ It is farther objected, by those who are disposed to cavil\nat, and find fault with the divine dispensations; that they are not just\nand equal, because we oftentimes see the righteous afflicted, and the\nwicked prosper in the world; which is to reproach, if not wholly to deny\nthe doctrine of providence. This is not only done by wicked men, but\nbelievers themselves have sometimes been under a temptation, through the\nprevalency of corrupt nature, to bring their objections against the\nequity of providence. Thus the Psalmist says; _But as for me, my feet\nwere almost gone; my steps had well nigh slipt. For I was envious at the\nfoolish, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked. For there are no bands\nin their death: but their strength is firm. They are not in trouble as\nother men; neither are they plagued like other men_, Psal. lxxiii. 2-5.\n_These are the ungodly, who prosper in the world; they increase in\nriches_: But as for himself, he says, _Verily, I have cleansed my heart\nin vain, and washed my hands in innocency; for all the day long have I\nbeen plagued and chastened every morning_, ver. 12-14. and the prophet\nJeremiah, when pleading with God concerning his judgments, though he\nowns, in general, that he was righteous, yet says he, _Wherefore doth\nthe way of the wicked prosper? Wherefore are all they happy that deal\nvery treacherously? Thou hast planted them, yea, they have taken root;\nthey grow, yea, they bring forth fruit; thou art near in their mouth,\nand far from their reins_, Jer. xii. 1, 2. He could hardly reconcile the\ngeneral idea which he had of God\u2019s justice, with the seeming inequality\nof the dispensations of his providence; so the prophet Habakkuk, though\nhe owns that God was _of purer eyes than to behold evil_, and that _he\ncannot look upon iniquity_, yet he seems to complain in the following\nwords, _Wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and\nholdest thy tongue, when the wicked devoureth the man that is more\nrighteous than he?_ Hab. i. 13. And Job seems to speak very\nunbecomingly, when he says, _Is it good unto thee that thou shouldest\noppress? that thou shouldest despise the work of thine hands? and shine\nupon the counsel of the wicked?_ Job. x. 3. So that, as the wicked\nboldly deny a providence, or, at least, reproach it; others, of a far\nbetter character, have, through the prevalency of their unbelief, seemed\nto detract from the glory thereof.\n\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, in general, in the apostle\u2019s words,\n_Nay but, O man, who art thou, that repliest against God?_ Rom. ix. 20.\nIs there no deference to be paid to his sovereignty, who has a right to\ndo what he will with his own? Is his justice to be impeached, and tryed\nat our bar? Or his wisdom to be measured by our short-sighted discerning\nof things, who cannot see the end from the beginning of his\ndispensations? It is true, good men have been sometimes tempted to\nquestion the equity of the distributions of providence, as in the\ninstances but now mentioned; unless we suppose, that the prophets\nHabakkuk, Jeremiah, and Job, rather speak the sense of the world, than\ntheir own sentiments of things, and desire that God would clear up some\ndark providences, that wicked men might not bring their objections\nagainst them; but it may be doubted, whether this be the sense of those\nscriptures or no. And as for the Psalmist, in the other scripture, it is\nplain, that he expresses the weakness of his own faith, which was\nsometimes almost overset; but, at other times, God condescends to\nresolve his doubts, and bring him into a better frame, as appears by\nsome following verses. But, that we may give a more particular reply to\nthis objection, let it be considered,\n\n1. That the unequal distribution of things is so far from being a\ndisparagement to any government, that it eminently sets forth the\nbeauty, wisdom, and excellency thereof, and is, in some respects\nnecessary. As it is not fit that every subject should be advanced to the\nsame honour, or that the favour of a prince should be dispensed alike to\nall; so it sets forth the beauty of providence, as God is the Governor\nof the world, that some should more eminently appear to be the objects\nof his favour than others.\n\n2. The wicked, whose condition is supposed, by those who bring this\nobjection, to be more happy than that of the righteous, will not appear,\nif things were duly weighed, to be so happy, as they are pretended to\nbe, if we consider the evils that they are exposed to at present, some\nof which are the immediate result and consequence of sin, whereby they\nare, as it were, tortured and distracted with contrary lusts and\npassions, which militate against the dictates of human nature, and\nrender the pleasures of sin less desirable in themselves: But, when we\nconsider those tormenting reflections, which they sometimes have, after\nthe commission thereof, these are altogether inconsistent with peace or\nhappiness, much more if we consider the end thereof, as it leads to\neverlasting destruction: thus it is said, _Even in laughter the heart is\nsorrowful; and the end of that mirth is heaviness. The backslider in\nheart shall be filled with his own ways_, Prov. xiv. 13, 14. Therefore,\nthe good man would not change conditions with him, how destitute soever\nhe may be of those riches, honours, or sensual pleasures, which the\nother reckons his portion; _A little that a righteous man hath, is\nbetter than the riches of many wicked_, Psal. xxxvii. 26.\n\n3. As for the good man, who is supposed to be in an afflicted condition\nin this life, we are not, from thence, to conclude him, in all respects,\nunhappy, for we are to judge of his state by the end thereof. He that\nlooks upon Lazarus, as full of sores, and destitute of many of the\nconveniences of life, may reckon him unhappy at present, when compared\nwith the condition of the rich man, who is represented in the parable,\nas _clothed with purple and fine linen, and faring sumptuously every\nday_: but if we consider him, when leaving the world, as _carried by\nangels, into Abraham\u2019s bosom_, and the other plunged into an abyss of\nmisery; no one will see reason to charge the providence of God with any\nneglect of him, or conclude him to be really miserable, because of his\ncondition in this present life. Moreover, if we consider the righteous\nin his most disadvantageous circumstances, as to what respects his\noutward condition; we must, notwithstanding, regard him, as an object of\ndivine love, and made partaker of those graces, and inward comforts,\nwhich are more than a balance for all his outward troubles; and\ntherefore we may say of him, as the apostle does of himself, though he\nbe _unknown_, that is obscure, and, as it were, disowned by the world,\nyet he is _well known_, that is, approved and beloved of God; does he\nlive an afflicted and _dying_ life? yet he has a better _life_, that is\nmaintained by him: Is he _chastened?_ yet he is _not killed_: Is he\n_sorrowful?_ yet he always _rejoiceth_: Is he _poor?_ yet he _maketh\nmany rich_; has he _nothing_, as to outward things? yet he _possesseth\nall things_, as he is an heir of eternal life, 2 Cor. vi. 9, 10.\n\nFootnote 37:\n\n _It was denied, indeed, by the Epicureans, who were detested by the\n better sort of heathen, and reckoned the Libertines of the respective\n ages, in which they lived; and, though they may occasionally speak of\n a God, yet were deemed no better than Atheists._ Diogenes Laertius\n [Vid. in Vit. Epicuri, _Lib. X._] _in the close of the life of\n Epicurus, gives a brief account of his sentiments about religion,\n which he lays down in several short Aphorisms; the first of which\n begins with this memorable passage_, \u03a4\u03bf \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03c6\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\n \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9 \u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9, Quod beatum & immortale est\n neque ipsum negotia habet, neque alii pr\u00e6bet; _which expression some\n of the wiser heathen have taken just offence at. And accordingly\n Cicero_, [Vid. ejusd. _Lib. I._ De Nat. Deor.] _referring to this\n passage, says, that whatever veneration Epicurus pretended to have for\n the gods, yet he was no better than an Atheist, and brought a god into\n his philosophy, that he might not fall under the displeasure of the\n senate at Athens: thus he says_, Novi ego Epicureos omnia Sigilla\n venerantes; quanquam video nonnullis videri Epicurum, ne in\n offensionem Atheniensium caderet, verbis reliquisse Deos,\n resustulisse: _And Lactantius observes the same thing concerning him,\n and describes him as a deceiver and a hypocrite_, Hic vero si aliud\n sensit, & aliud locutus est; quid aliud appellandus est, quam\n deceptor, bilinguis, malus, & propterea stultus? _Vid. Lactant. de Ira\n Dei, Cap. 4. And as for the Poets, it was only the most vain among\n them, who gave countenance to immorality, and endeavoured to debauch\n the age in which they lived, that gave out this notion; and, in our\n age, this seems to be one of the first principles of Deism._\n\nFootnote 38:\n\n Vide ante. Vol. I. p. 532, in note.\n\nFootnote 39:\n\n _See Charnock, Flavell, Dr. Collings, on Providence._\n\n\n\n\n Quest. XIX.\n\n\n QUEST. XIX. _What is God\u2019s providence towards the angels?_\n\n ANSW. God, by his providence, permitted some of the angels, wilfully\n and irrecoverably, to fall into sin and damnation, limiting and\n ordering that, and all their sins to his own glory, and established\n the rest in holiness and happiness; employing them all at his\n pleasure, in the administration of his power, mercy, and justice.\n\nIt was observed, in a foregoing answer, that God created all the angels\nholy; but, in this, some of them are described as fallen, while the rest\nretained their first integrity. And the providence of God is considered,\nas conversant about this matter, in different respects. Accordingly it\nis said,\n\nI. That God, by his providence, permitted some of the angels to fall.\nThis appears, by the event, because there are some wicked and impure\nspirits, sunk down into the depths of misery, from that state in which\nthey were created, as the consequence of their rebellion against God.\n\nAnd inasmuch as it is observed, that it was only a part of the angels\nthat fell, we may infer from thence; that the dispensation of\nprovidence, towards the angels, was different from that which mankind\nwas subject to, when first created, in that one of them was not\nconstituted the head and representative of the rest, in whom they were\nall to stand or fall; but the happiness or misery of every one of them\nwas to be the result of his own personal conduct. As their persisting in\nobedience to God was necessary to their establishment in holiness and\nhappiness, so the least instance of rebellion against him, would bring\ninevitable ruin, upon them. Now that which is observed concerning a part\nof them, is, that they fell into sin and damnation: thus the apostle\nsays, in 2 Pet. ii. 4. _God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast\nthem down to hell._\n\nTheir sin, or fall, was wilful; they commenced an open war against their\nCreator. Herein that enmity to God, and goodness, took its first rise,\nwhich has, ever since, been expressed by them, in various instances.\nTheir sin appears to have been wilful, inasmuch as it was committed\nagainst the greatest degree of light, for all the angels are described\nas _excelling in knowledge_; and that subtility, which is knowledge\nabused, and depraved with sin, that discovers itself in the fallen\nangels, argues, that their knowledge, before they fell, was very great,\nand therefore their rebellion was aggravated in proportion thereunto.\n\nMoreover, they sinned without a tempter, especially those who first took\nup arms against God. Whether others, by their instigation, might not be\ninduced to sin, we know not[40]: But this is certain, that this\nrebellion was begun without a tempter; for there were no fallen\ncreatures to present a temptation, nor any corruption in their natures\nthat internally drew them aside from God; and therefore their sin might\nwell be styled wilful.\n\nAnd it may be observed, that the consequence hereof was their\nirrecoverable ruin. This respects the event of their fall; or that God\ndesigned, for ever, to leave them in that sinful and miserable state\ninto which they hereby brought themselves. He might, indeed, have\nrecovered them, as well as sinful man, had he pleased; but he has\nprovided no mediator, no surety, to give satisfaction for them. The\nblessed Jesus is expressly said, not to have taken _their nature upon\nhim_, thereby to signify that their condition was irretrievable, and\ntheir misery to be eternal.\n\nNow it is farther observed, that the providence of God was conversant\nabout their sin and fall, in the same sense in which as it has been\nbefore observed, it is conversant about sin in general; which is\nconsistent with his holiness, as well as other perfections, namely, in\n_permitting_, _limiting_, and _ordering_ it, and all their other sins,\nto his own glory.\n\n1. He permitted it. To permit, is not to prevent a sin; and to say that\nGod did not prevent their fall, is to assert a truth which none ever\ndenied, or thought necessary to be proved.\n\n2. It is farther observed, that the providence of God sets bounds and\nlimits to their sin; as it does to the waves of the sea, when he says,\n_Hitherto shall ye go, and no farther_. How destructive to mankind would\nthe malice of fallen angels be, were it not restrained? What would not\nSatan attempt against us, had he an unlimited power? We have a\nremarkable instance of this in the case of Job. Satan first accused him\nas a time-serving hypocrite; a mercenary professor, one that did not\n_fear God for nought_, in chap. i, 9. and how desirous was he that\nprovidence would give him up to his will, and take away the hedge of its\nsafe protection? But God would not do this; nevertheless, so far as\nSatan was suffered, he poured in a confluence of evils upon him, but\ncould proceed no farther. First, he was suffered to plunder him of his\nsubstance, and take away his children, by a violent death; but was so\nrestrained, that, _upon himself_, he was not to _put forth his hand_, in\nver. 12. Afterwards, he was permitted to touch his person; and then we\nread of his smiting him with _sore boils, from the sole of his foot unto\nhis crown_, in chap. ii. 7. But yet he was not suffered to take away his\nlife. And, after this the devil\u2019s malice still growing stronger against\nhim, he endeavours to weaken his faith, to drive him into despair, and\nto rob him of that inward peace, which might have given some allay to\nhis other troubles; but yet he is not suffered to destroy his graces, or\nhurry him into a total apostacy from God. What would not fallen angels\nattempt against mankind, were not their sin limited by the providence of\nGod!\n\n3. God\u2019s providence ordered, or over-ruled, the fall of angels, and all\nother sins consequent hereupon, to his own glory. Their power, indeed,\nis great, though limited, as appears by the innumerable instances of\nthose who have been not only tempted, but overthrown, and ruined by\nthem. It may truly be said of them, that _they have cast down many\nwounded; yea many strong men have been slain by them_. Nevertheless, God\nover-rules this for his own glory; for from hence he takes occasion to\ntry his people\u2019s graces, to give them an humbling sense of the\ncorruption of their nature, and of their inability, to stand in the hour\nof temptation, without his immediate assistance, and puts them upon\nimploring help from him, with great importunity; as the apostle Paul\ndid, 2 Cor. xii. 7-9. when the _messenger of Satan was suffered to\nbuffet him_, and God took occasion, at the same time, to display that\n_grace, which was sufficient for him_, and that _strength_, that was\n_made perfect in weakness_, and, in the end, to bruise Satan under his\nfeet, and to make him more than a conqueror over him.\n\nHaving thus considered some of the angels, as sinning and falling, it\nmight farther be enquired; whether these all fell at once? And here I\ncannot but take notice of a very absurd and groundless conjecture of\nsome of the fathers, and others, who of late, have been too much\ninclined to give into it, namely, that though some of them sinned from\nthe beginning, and these were the occasion of the sin of our first\nparents, as all allow; yet, after this, others, who were appointed to\nminister to men, were unfaithful in the discharge of their office, and\nbecame partners with them in sin; accordingly they understand that\nscripture, in which it is said, _The sons of God saw the daughters of\nmen, that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they\nchose_, Gen. vi. 2. as though it were meant of angels;[41] whereas\nnothing is intended thereby but some of the posterity of Seth, who were,\nbefore this, professors of the true religion.\n\nThere are, indeed, some, of late, who have given into this notion, and\nstrain the sense of that text, in Jude, ver. 6, 7. in which it is said,\nthat the angels, _which kept not their first estate_, &c. _even as Sodom\nand Gomorrah, giving themselves over to fornication, are set forth, for\nan example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire_; the meaning of\nwhich they suppose to be this; that, even as the Sodomites were guilty\nof fornication, and were destroyed, by fire from heaven, for it, so some\nof the angels were sent down to hell for the same sin: But it is plain\nthe apostle does not here compare the angels and the Sodomites together,\nas guilty of the same kind of sin, but as both are condemned to suffer\nthe vengeance of eternal fire, and are set forth as warnings to\npresumptuous sinners. Therefore nothing more need be added under this\nhead; it is enough to say, that this opinion is contrary to the\nspirituality of the nature of angels; though there are some ancient\nwriters, who, to give countenance thereunto, have supposed that the\nangelic spirits were either united to some bodies, or that they assumed\nthem for this purpose; but this is equally absurd, and without any\ncountenance from scripture. Thus concerning the providence of God, as\nexercised towards the angels that fell. We proceed,\n\nII. To consider providence, as conversant about the rest of the angels,\nwho retained their integrity. Concerning these it is said,\n\n1. That God established them in holiness and happiness. These two\nprivileges are always connected together. It is not said, that they were\nbrought into such a state, or, like man, recovered out of a fallen\nstate, for they are considered, as sinless, or holy angels; nor is it\nsupposed their holiness was increased, since that would be inconsistent\nwith its having been perfect before: That privilege therefore, which\nprovidence conferred on them, was the confirming, or establishing them\nin that state, in which they were created; which bears some resemblance\nto that privilege, which man would have enjoyed, had he retained his\nintegrity, as he would not only have continued to be holy and happy, so\nlong as he remained innocent; but he would have been so confirmed in it,\nthat his fall would have been prevented: But of this, more in its proper\nplace. The angels, I say, had something like this, which we call the\ngrace of confirmation.\n\nSome have enquired whether this was the result of their yielding perfect\nobedience for a time, while remaining in a state of probation, pursuant\nto some covenant, not much unlike that which God made with innocent man;\nand whether this privilege was the consequence of their fulfilling the\ncondition thereof. But this is to enter too far into things out of our\nreach; nor is it much for our edification to determine it, though some\nhave asserted, without proving it, while others have supposed them to\nhave been confirmed, when first created, and that herein there was an\ninstance of discriminating grace among the angels; so that they, who\nfell, were left to the mutability of their wills, whereas they, who\nstood, had, at the same time, the grace of confirmation.\n\nI might here have been more particular, in considering what this\nprivilege imports, and how it renders the fall of those who are\nconfirmed impossible, and therefore it is a very considerable addition\nto their happiness: But since we shall have occasion to speak of the\ngrace of confirmation, which man was given to expect in the first\ncovenant under a following answer, and the privileges that would have\nattended it, had he stood, we shall add no more on that subject in this\nplace; but proceed to prove, that the angels are established and\nconfirmed in holiness and happiness.\n\nThis may, in some measure, be argued, from their being called _elect\nangels_, 1. Tim. v. 21. If _election_, when applied to men, imports the\npurpose of God, to confer everlasting blessedness on those who are the\nobjects thereof, and so not only implies that they shall be saved, but\nthat their salvation shall be eternal; why may it not, when applied to\nangels, infer the eternity of their holiness and happiness, and\nconsequently their being established therein?\n\nAgain, this may be also argued, from their coming with Christ, when he\nshall appear to judge the world; and the joining the saints and angels\ntogether in one assembly in heaven: therefore, if the happiness of the\none be eternal, that of the other must be so likewise. It is also said,\nexpressly of the angels, that _they always behold the face of God_. And,\nwhen we read of the destruction of the church\u2019s enemies, the angels are\nrepresented as observers of God\u2019s righteous judgments; and then it is\nadded, that the punishment inflicted on those, who shall _drink of the\nwine of the wrath of God_, shall be eternal, and this eternal punishment\nwill be _in the presence of the holy angels_, Rev. xiv. 10, 11. If\ntherefore the duration of the holiness and happiness of the angels, be\nequal to that of the misery of God\u2019s implacable enemies, as both are\nsaid to be eternal, this evidently proves that the angels are\nestablished in holiness and happiness.\n\n2. It is farther observed, that God employs all the angels, at his\npleasure, in the administration of his power, mercy, and justice. This\nleads us to speak concerning the ministry of angels, which is either\nextraordinary, or ordinary. Most of the instances which we have thereof,\nespecially in the Old Testament, were performed in an extraordinary\nmanner, and sometimes attended with their appearance in a human form,\nassumed for that purpose: This may be briefly considered; and then we\nshall enquire, whether, though their ministry be not visible, or\nattended with those circumstances, as it formerly was, there are not\nsome other instances, in which the providence of God now employs them\nfor the good of his church. As to the former of these, we read that God\nhas sometimes sent them to supply his servants with necessary food, when\ndestitute thereof, and there was no ordinary way for their procuring it:\nThus an angel brought _a cake_, and _a cruse of water_, to Elijah, when\nhe was on his journey to Horeb, _the mount of God_, 1. Kings xix. 5-8.\nAnd when Abraham\u2019s servant was travelling to Mesopotamia, to bring a\nwife from thence for Isaac, Abraham tells him, that _God would send his\nangel before him_, Gen. xxi. 7. and so make his journey prosperous.\n\nAgain, the angels have sometimes been sent to defend God\u2019s people, and\nto assure them of safety, when exposed to danger: Thus, when Jacob was\nreturning from Laban to his own country, and was apprehensive of the\ndanger that he was exposed to, from the resentment of his brother Esau,\nit is said, that _the angels of God met him; and, when he saw them, he\nsaid, This is God\u2019s host_, Gen. xxxii. 1, 2. And when the prophet Elijah\nwas encompassed about by the Syrian army, sent on purpose to take him,\nhe was defended by an host of angels appearing under the emblem of\n_horses_ and _chariots of fire round about him_, 2 Kings vi. 15-17.\nOthers, when persecuted, and, as it were, delivered over to death, have\nbeen preserved, by the ministry of angels, as Daniel was, when cast into\nthe _lion\u2019s den_, Dan. vi. 22. Others have been released from their\nchains, and the prison doors opened by them; as Peter, and the rest of\nthe apostles were, Acts xii. 17. compared with chap. v. 19.\n\nAgain, sometimes they have been employed to deliver messages, and give\nthe prophets an extraordinary intimation of future events; as the angel\nGabriel did to Daniel, Dan. viii. 16. And an angel was sent to\nZacharias, to foretel the birth of his son, _John the Baptist_, Luke i.\n13.\n\nMoreover, the angels of God have sometimes been employed to give a check\nto his enemies, when they have attempted any thing against his church:\nThus the angel met Balaam in the way, when he was riding to seek\ninchantments against Israel, _his way_ being _perverse before God_,\nNumb. xxii. 32. And another angel was sent, as a minister of God\u2019s\njustice, in bringing the pestilence on Israel, for David\u2019s numbering the\npeople, who appeared _with his hand stretched out upon Jerusalem to\ndestroy it_, 2 Sam. xxiv. 16. and afterwards withdrew his hand, when God\ntold him, _It is enough, and_ that _it repented him of the evil_. And to\nthis we may add, that the angels shall be employed, at last, in\ngathering together the elect, from the four winds, that they may appear\nbefore Christ\u2019s tribunal. These, and many other instances to the like\npurpose, are mentioned, in scripture, to set forth the extraordinary\nministry of angels.\n\nThere are also other instances, in which, though miracles are ceased,\nthe angels are employed to perform some works in the hand of providence\nfor God\u2019s people: Thus there are some promises, which seem to be applied\nto the church in all ages, of blessings, which should be conferred by\ntheir ministry; as when it is said, _He shall give his angels charge\nover thee, to keep thee in all thy ways; they shall bear thee up in\ntheir hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone_, Psal. xci. 11,\n12. which scripture, though it may have a particular reference to their\nministry to our Saviour, yet it seems to be applicable also to his\npeople; and that promise, _The angel of the Lord encampeth round about\nthem that fear him, and delivereth them_, Psal. xxxiv. 7. is applicable\nto them in all ages, as well as that in which it is said, concerning the\nministry of angels to infants, that _in heaven their angels do always\nbehold the face of my Father, which is in heaven_, Matt. xviii. 10.\n\nMoreover, the ministry of angels to dying saints, who are, according to\nwhat our Saviour says in the parable, _carried_, by them, _into\nAbraham\u2019s bosom_, Luke xvi. 22. is universally true of all saints. And\nit is expressly said, with a peculiar application to the\ngospel-dispensation, that the angels are _all ministring spirits sent\nforth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation_, Heb. i. 14.\nso that though their ministry, as to many circumstances thereof, differ\nfrom what it was of old, there being nothing miraculous now attending\nit, as formerly there was; yet it remains an undoubted truth, that they\nare, and have been, in all ages, made use of, by the providence of God,\nin the administration of his power, mercy, and justice.\n\nI shall conclude this head with a few cautions relating to this matter,\nas this doctrine is not to be laid down without certain restrictions, or\nlimitations; therefore,\n\n1. We must take heed, notwithstanding what has been said concerning the\nministry of angels, that we don\u2019t take occasion hereby to set aside the\nimmediate influence, or concern of the providence of God, for his\nchurch; for whatever may be ascribed to angels, as second causes, our\nprincipal regard must be to him, whose ministers they are; neither are\nwe to entertain the least thought, as though God had committed the\ngovernment of the world, or the church, to them; which the apostle\nexpressly denies, when he says, _Unto the angels hath he not put in\nsubjection the world to come_, Heb. ii. 5. therefore,\n\n2. The praise and glory of all their ministry is not to be ascribed to\nthem, but to him, who makes use of them; nor are we to pretend, at all\ntimes, to determine, that this or that particular dispensation of\nprovidence is by the immediate hand of God, and another by the ministry\nof angels; since it is enough for us to say, that, though God does not\nneed their assistance, yet he sometimes sets forth the sovereignty of\nhis providence, and evinces his right to employ all his creatures at his\npleasure, as well as gives an additional instance of his care of his\nchurches, by employing them in extraordinary services for their good;\nthough we cannot, at all times, distinguish between what is done by the\nimmediate hand of God, and other things performed by their ministry.\n\n3. Whatever we assert, concerning the ministry of angels, we must take\nheed that we do not regard them as objects of divine worship, or\nexercise that dependence on, or give that glory to them, which is due to\nGod alone. Nor are we to suppose, that God employs them in those works\nthat are the effects of his supernatural or almighty power, in which he\ndeals with the hearts of his people, in a way more immediately conducive\nto their conversion and salvation.\n\nFootnote 40:\n\n _Some think, that those expressions, which we find in scripture, that\n speak of the_ devil, and his angels, _and the_ prince of devils,\n _import as much; but this we pretend not to determine_.\n\nFootnote 41:\n\n _This was the opinion of most if the fathers, in the three first\n centuries of the church, namely, Justin Martyr, Origen, Tertullian,\n Clemens, Alexandrinus, Lactantius, Iren\u00e6us, Cyprian, and others. Some\n of them appeared to have taken the hint thereof from some MS. of the\n LXX translation, which rendered the words in Gen. vi. 2. instead of\n the_ sons of God, the angels saw the daughters of men, &c. _This\n translation being used by them, instead of the Hebrew text, which they\n did not well understand; though others took it from a spurious and\n fabulous writing, which they had in their hands, called_ Enoch, _or_,\n the prophecy of Enoch, _or rather_, Liber, \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b5\u03b3\u03c1\u03b7\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd, de\n Egregoris, _a barbarous Greek word, used to signify angels, and taken\n from the character given them of watchers, in Daniel. Of this book, we\n have some fragments now remaining, in which there is such a ridiculous\n and fabulous account of this matter, as very much, herein exceeds the\n apocryphal history of Tobit. It gives an account of a conspiracy among\n the angels, relating to this matter; the manner of their entering into\n it, their names, the year of the world, and place in which this\n wickedness was committed, and other things, that are unworthy of a\n grave historian; and, the reckoning it among those writings, that are\n supposed to have a divine sanction, is little other than profaneness\n and blasphemy. Some of the fathers, who refer to this book, pretend it\n to be no other than apocryphal, and, had they counted it otherwise,\n all would have reckoned it a burlesque upon scripture; therefore\n Origen, who, on other occasions, seems to pay too great a deference to\n it, when Celsus takes notice of it, as containing a banter on the\n Christian religion, he is, on that occasion, obliged to reply to him,\n that book was not in great reputation in the church,_ Vid. Orig.\n contra Celsum, _Lib. V. And Jerom reckons it among the apocryphal\n writings_, Vid. Hieronym. in Catal. Script. Eccles. _cap. 4. And\n Augustin calls it not only apocryphal, but, as it deserves, fabulous._\n Vid. ejusd. de Civ. Dei. _Lib. XV. cap. 23._\n\n\n\n\n Quest XX.\n\n\n QUEST. XX. _What was the providence of God toward man in the estate\n wherein he was created?_\n\n ANSW. The providence of God toward man, in the estate wherein he was\n created, was, the placing him in paradise, appointing him to dress\n it, giving him liberty to eat of the fruit of the earth, putting the\n creatures under his dominion, and ordaining marriage for his help,\n affording him communion with himself, instituting the Sabbath,\n entering into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of\n personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience; of which, the tree of\n life was a pledge; and forbidding to eat of the tree of knowledge of\n good and evil, upon the pain of death.\n\nIn this answer, we have an account of the providence of God, as\nrespecting the _outward_, and the _spiritual_, concerns of man.\n\nI. As to what respects his outward estate, we have an account,\n\n1. Of God\u2019s fixing the place of his abode, which was to be in paradise,\na very large and most delightful garden, of God\u2019s own planting, an\n_epitome_ of all the beauties of nature, which, as it were, presented to\nhis view the whole world in miniature; so that herein he might, without\ntravelling many miles, behold the most beautiful land-skip which the\nworld afforded, and partake of all the fruits, with which it was stored.\nThe whole world, indeed, was given him for a possession; but this was,\nas it were, a store-house of its choicest fruits, and the peculiar seat\nof his residence.\n\nWe find the word _paradise_ used, in scripture, sometimes to signify a\ndelightful garden, and sometimes it is taken, in a metaphorical sense,\nto signify _heaven_, Luke xxiii. 43. 2 Cor. xii. 4. Rev. ii. 7. by which\napplication thereof, we may conclude, that this earthly paradise, in\nwhich man was placed, was a kind of type of the heavenly blessedness,\nwhich, had he retained his integrity, he would have been possessed of,\nand which they, who are saved by Christ, shall be brought to.\n\nHere we may take notice of the conjectures of some ancient and modern\nwriters concerning it, more especially as to what respects that part of\nthe world wherein it was situate; and whether it is now in being, or to\nbe found in any part of it, at this day. Many have given great scope to\ntheir conception about the situation of paradise, and some conjectures\nare so absurd, that they hardly deserve to be mentioned. As,\n\n(1.) Some have thought that it was situate in some place, superior to,\nand remote from this globe of the earth, in which we live; but they have\nnot the least shadow of reason for this supposition, and nothing can be\nmore contrary to the account we have thereof in scripture.\n\n(2.) Others fancy, that there was really no such place, but that the\nwhole account we have thereof, in Gen. ii. is allegorical; thus Origen,\nPhilo, and some modern writers: but no one can justly suppose this, who\nduly weighs the historical account we have of it, in scripture, with\nthat sobriety and impartiality that he ought; for, according to this\nmethod of reasoning, we may turn any thing into an allegory, and so\nnever come to any determinate sense of scripture, but what the wild\nfancies of men suggest.\n\n(3.) Others have supposed, that the whole world was one great garden, or\nparadise, and that when man was placed therein, it was so described, to\nsignify the beauties of nature, before they were lost, by the curse\nconsequent on sin: But this cannot be true, because God first made man,\nand then _planted this garden_, and afterwards _put him into it_; Gen.\nii. 8. and after the fall, he _drove him out of it_, chap. iii. 24. But,\npassing by these groundless conjectures, something may be determined,\nwith more certainty, concerning the situation thereof, and more\nagreeable to scripture; therefore,\n\n(4.) It was situate in Mesopotamia, near Babylon, to the north-east end\nof the land of Canaan. This appears,\n\n_1st_, From the country adjacent to it, which is called Eden, out of\nwhich the river that watered it is said to proceed, chap. ii. 10. This\ncountry was afterwards known by the same name, and is elsewhere reckoned\namong those that the king of Assyria had conquered, Isa. xxxvii. 12.\n\n_2dly_, Two of the rivers, that proceeded from Eden, which watered\nparadise, were well known in after-ages, _viz._ Hiddekel, or Tigris, and\nEuphrates, especially the latter, of which we often read in scripture;\nand it is certain they were in Mesopotamia; therefore the garden of Eden\nwas there. And, as it was the finest plantation in the world, this was\none of the most pleasant climates therein, not situate too far\nnorthward, so as to be frozen up in winter; nor too near the equator\nsouth-ward, so as to be scorched with excessive heat in summer; this was\nthe place of man\u2019s residence at first.[42]\n\nBut if any are so curious in their enquiries, as to desire to know the\nparticular spot of ground in which it was; that is not to be determined.\nFor though the place where paradise was, must still be in being, as much\nas any other part of the world; yet there are no remains of it, that can\ngive any satisfaction to the curiosity of men, with relation thereunto;\nfor it is certain, that it was soon destroyed as a garden, partly by the\nflaming sword, or stream of fire, which was designed to guard the way of\nthe tree of life, that man might no more come to it; and thereby to\nsignify, that it ceased to be an ordinance, for his faith concerning the\nway in which eternal life was to be obtained. And it is more than\nprobable, that this stream of fire, which is called a flaming sword,\ndestroyed, or burnt up, this garden; and, besides this, the curse of\nGod, by which the earth brought forth briars and thorns, affected this,\nas well as other parts of the world; so that, by reason thereof, and for\nwant of culture, it soon lost its beauty, and so could not well be\ndistinguished from the barren wilderness. And to this let me add, that\nsince the flood, the face of the earth is so altered, that it is a vain\nthing for travellers to search for any traces thereof, or to pretend to\ndetermine, within a few miles, the place where it was.\n\nHaving considered the place of man\u2019s abode, to wit, paradise, we have,\n\n2. An account of his secular employment therein. He was appointed to\ndress, or manure it; from whence we may take occasion to observe, that a\nsecular employment is not inconsistent with perfect holiness, or a\nperson\u2019s enjoying communion with God, and that blessedness which arises\nfrom it: but, on the other hand, it may be reckoned an advantage,\ninasmuch as it is a preservative against idleness, and those temptations\nthat oftentimes attend it. Notwithstanding, though man was employed in\nthis work, it was performed without that labour, fatigue, and\nuneasiness, which now attends it, or those disappointments, and\nperplexities, which men are now exposed to, whose secular callings are a\nrelief against poverty, and a necessary means for their comfortable\nsubsistence in the world, which had not man fell, would not have been\nattended with those inconveniences that now they are, as the consequence\nof that curse, which sin brought with it; as it is said, _In the sweat\nof thy face shalt thou eat bread_, Gen. iii. 19.\n\n3. We have a farther account of the provision that providence made for\nman\u2019s subsistence; the great variety of fruits, which the earth\nproduced, were given him for food, the tree of knowledge of good and\nevil only excepted. From whence we may observe, the difference between\nthe condition of man in paradise, and that of the saints in heaven, in\nwhich the bodies of men shall be supported, without food, when changed\nand adapted to such a way of living, as is inconsistent with this\npresent state; which seems to be the meaning of that expression of the\napostle, _Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats; but God shall\ndestroy both it and them_, 1 Cor. vi. 13.\n\nHere we may take occasion to enquire, whether the fruits of the earth\nwere the only food which man lived on, not only before the fall, but in\nseveral following ages? or, whether flesh was eaten before the flood? It\nseems most agreeable to the dictates of nature, to suppose, that he\nwould never have found out such an expedient, as killing the beasts, and\neating their flesh to subsist him, had he not received an express\ndirection to do it from God, which rendered it a duty. And we have a\nparticular intimation of this grant given to Noah, after the deluge,\nwhen God says, _Every moving thing that liveth_, namely, every clean\nbeast, _shall be meat for you_, Gen. ix. 3. from whence some conclude,\nthat there was no flesh eaten before this; and that the distinction,\nwhich we read of, concerning clean and unclean beasts, which Noah\nbrought with him into the ark, respected either such as were fit or\nunfit for sacrifice; or the clean beasts were such as God afterwards\ndesigned for food; and therefore there is a kind of prolepsis in their\nbeing called clean at that time.\n\nThe principal reason that induces some to suppose this, is, because we\nread, in the scripture but now mentioned, that when God directed Noah,\nand his posterity, to eat flesh, and considered this as a peculiar gift\nof providence, he said, _Even as the green herb have I given you all\nthings_; that is, as when I created man at first, _I gave him every herb\nbearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree,\nin the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed, that it should be to\nhim for meat_; but now _have I given you all things_, Gen. i. 29. that\nis, have made a considerable addition to your food by giving you a\nliberty to feed on flesh; where the manner of expression seems to\nintimate, that, in this respect, man\u2019s food differed from what it was\nbefore. This conjecture, for that is the most that I can call it, seems,\nto me, to have equal, if not greater, probability in it, than the\ncontrary, which is the commonly received opinion relating hereunto; and,\nif it be true, then we may observe, if we compare the food, by which man\nsubsisted, with the length of his life, in the first ages of the world,\nthat the most simple diet is the most wholesome; when men become slaves\nto their appetites, and pamper themselves with variety of meats, they\ndo, as it were, dig their own graves, and render their lives shorter,\nthan they would be, according to the common course of nature.\n\nIf it be objected to this, that man\u2019s not feeding on flesh, was such a\ndiminution of his happiness, that it seems inconsistent with a state of\ninnocency. To this it may be answered, that for man to feed on what the\nearth produced, was no mortification or unhappiness, to him; especially\nif it were, by a peculiar blessing of providence, adapted to, as well as\ndesigned for his nourishment, as being his only food; in which case none\nof those consequences would ensue, which would now attend a person\u2019s\nbeing wholly confined thereto. If this way of living was so far from\ndestroying, or weakening the constitution of men, that it tended, by the\npeculiar blessing of God, not only to nourish, but to maintain health,\nand was medicinal, as well as nourishing, and so conducive to long life;\nand if the fruits of the earth, before that alteration, which they might\nprobably sustain by the deluge, or, at least, before the curse of God\nwas brought upon the earth by man\u2019s sin, differed vastly from what they\nnow are, both as to the pleasantness of their taste, and their virtue to\nnourish; if these things are supposed, it cannot be reckoned any degree\nof unhappiness, though man, at this time, might have no other food, but\nwhat the earth produced: But this I reckon among the number of those\nprobable conjectures, concerning which it is not very material to\ndetermine, whether they are true or false.\n\n4. God gave man dominion over all creatures in this world, or, as it is\nexpressed, he _put them under his feet_, Psal. viii. 6. which not only\nargues a superiority of nature, but a propriety in, and liberty to use\nthem, to the glory of God, and his own advantage. No creature was in\nitself a snare to him, or a necessary occasion of sin; for as the\ncreature at first, to use the Apostles phrase, was not liable to _the\nbondage of corruption_, so it was not _subject to vanity_, Rom. viii.\n20, 21. by an inclination that he had in his nature to abuse it. And as\nfor those creatures which are now formidable to man, as the lion, the\ntyger, &c. these, as it is more than probable, had not that fierceness\nin their nature, before the fall of man, and the curse consequent\nthereupon, so that our first parents could make as much use of them, and\nhad them as much under their command, as we have the tamest creatures.\nAnd it is not improbable, that they did not prey upon, and devour one\nanother, as now they do, since providence provided the produce of the\nearth _for their food_, Gen. i. 30. and therefore, by a natural\ninstinct, they sought it only from thence; so that the beasts devouring\none another, as well as their being injurious to man, is a standing mark\nof the curse of God, which was consequent on sin.\n\nWe read of a time in which the church is given to expect, that _the wolf\nand the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the\nbullock, and dust shall be the serpent\u2019s meat; they shall not hurt, nor\ndestroy, in all God\u2019s holy mountain_, Isa. lxv. 25. which, if it shall\nbe literally accomplished, is an intimation that it was so at first, as\nit contains a prediction of the restoring of this part of nature, in\nsome respects, to its first estate. But, supposing it only to be a\nmetaphorical description of the church\u2019s happy state in future ages; the\nprophet\u2019s using this metaphor, argues the possibility of the thing\u2019s\nbeing literally true, and that it is a consequence of man\u2019s fallen state\nthat it is not so now, therefore it is probable, that it was otherwise\nat first. Such conjectures as these may be excused, if we don\u2019t pretend\nthem to be articles of faith, nor think it worth our while to contend\nwith those who deny them.\n\n5. It is farther observed, that God ordained marriage for man\u2019s help,\nand that not only in what concerns the conveniences of this life, but as\na means to promote his spiritual welfare, as such a nearness of relation\nlays the strongest obligations to it; and also that the world might be\nincreased, without any sinful expedient conducive thereunto; and herein\nthere was a standing precedent to be observed by mankind, in all\nsucceeding ages, that hereby the unlawfulness of polygamy, and other\nviolations of the seventh commandment, might evidently appear[43].\n\nII. We proceed to consider the providence of God, as conversant about\nman\u2019s spiritual concerns, and that in three respects, namely, in\ngranting him communion with himself, in instituting the Sabbath, and\nentering into a covenant of life with him.\n\n1. Man, in the estate in which he was created, was favoured with\ncommunion with God: This supposes a state of friendship, and is opposed\nto estrangement, separation, or alienation from him; and, as the result\nhereof,\n\n(1.) God was pleased to manifest his glory to him, and that not only in\nan objective way, or barely by giving him a conviction, that he is a God\nof infinite perfection, which a person may have, who is destitute of\ncommunion with him: but he displayed his perfections in such a manner to\nhim, so as to let him see his interest therein, and that, as long as he\nretained his integrity, they were engaged to make him happy.\n\n(2.) This communion was attended with access to God, without fear, and a\ngreat delight in his presence; for man, being without guilt, was not\nafraid to draw nigh to God; and, being without spot, as made after his\nimage, he had no shame, or confusion of face, when standing before him,\nas a holy, sin-hating God.\n\n(3.) It consisted in his being made partaker of those divine influences,\nwhereby he was excited to put forth acts of holy obedience to, and love\nand delight in him, which were a spring and fountain of spiritual joy.\n\nNevertheless, though this communion was perfect in its kind, as\nagreeable to the state in which he was at first, yet it was not so\nperfect, as to degree, as it would have been, had he continued in his\nintegrity, till he was possessed of those blessings, which would have\nbeen the consequence thereof; for then the soul would have been more\nenlarged, and made receptive of greater degrees of communion, which he\nwould have enjoyed in heaven. He was, indeed, at first, in a holy and\nhappy state, yet he was not in heaven, and, though he enjoyed God, it\nwas in ordinances, and not in an immediate way, and accordingly it was\nnecessary for him constantly to address himself to him, for the\nmaintenance of that spiritual life, which he had received, together with\nhis being; and this was not inconsistent with a state of innocency, any\nmore than the maintenance of our natural lives, by the use of proper\nfood, is inconsistent with health, or argues an infirm, or sickly\nconstitution, or any need of medicine to recover it; yet our lives would\nbe more confirmed, and, if we may so express it, less precarious, if God\nhad ordained that they should have been supported without these means.\n\nThis may serve to illustrate the difference that there is between the\nhappiness that the saints enjoy, in God\u2019s immediate presence in heaven,\nand that which is expected, as the result of our daily access to him, in\nordinances, wherein we hope for some farther degree of communion with\nhim; the former of these man would have attended to, had he stood; the\nlatter contained in it, that state in which he was in innocency: but\ninasmuch as there can be no communion with God, but what has a\nproportionable degree of delight and pleasure attending it; this our\nfirst parents may be said to have experienced, which contributed to the\nhappiness of that state in which they were, though this joy was not so\ncomplete, as that is which they are possessed of, who have not only an\nassurance of the impossibility of losing that communion, which they have\nwith God at present, but are arrived to a state of perfect blessedness.\n\n2. God sanctified and instituted the Sabbath for man\u2019s more immediate\naccess to him, and, that he might express his gratitude for the\nblessings he was made partaker of, and might have a recess from that\nsecular employment, which, as was before observed, he was engaged in.\nThis was therefore a great privilege; and, indeed, the Sabbath was a\npledge, or shadow, of an everlasting Sabbath, which he would have\nenjoyed in heaven, had he not forfeited, and lost it, by his fall. But\nwe shall have occasion to speak more particularly to this head under the\nfourth commandment;[44] and therefore all that we shall add, at present,\nis, that the Sabbath was instituted as a day of rest for man, even while\nhe remained in a state of innocency. This appears from its being blessed\nand sanctified, upon the occasion of God\u2019s resting from his work of\ncreation; therefore it was, at that time, set apart to be observed by\nhim.\n\n_Object. 1._ It is objected, that it might then be sanctified with this\nview, that man should observe it after his fall, or, in particular, at\nthat time when the observation of it was enjoined.\n\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that there never was any ordinance\ninstituted, but what was designed to be observed by man, immediately\nafter the institution thereof. Now the sanctification of the Sabbath\nimports as much as its institution, or setting apart for a holy use;\ntherefore we cannot but suppose, that God designed that it should be\nobserved by man in innocency.\n\n_Object. 2._ It is farther objected, that it is inconsistent with the\nhappy state, in which man was created, for God to appoint a day of rest\nfor him, to be then observed; for rest supposes labour, and therefore is\nmore agreeable to that state into which he brought himself by sin, when,\nby the sweat of his brow, he was to eat bread.\n\n_Answ._ Though it is true, man, in innocency, was not exposed to that\nuneasiness and fatigue that attended his employment after his fall,\nneither was the work he was engaged in a burthen to him, so as that he\nneeded a day of rest to give him ease, in that respect; yet a cessation\nfrom a secular employment, attended with a more immediate access to God\nin his holy institutions, wherein he might hope for a greater degree of\ncommunion with him, was not inconsistent with that degree of holiness\nand happiness, in which he was created, which, as was before observed,\nwas short of the heavenly blessedness; so that, though heaven is a\nstate, in which the saints enjoy an everlasting Sabbath, it does not\nfollow that man, how happy soever he was in paradise, was so far\nfavoured therein, as that a day of rest was inconsistent with that\nstate.\n\n3. We shall proceed to enquire how the providence of God had a more\nimmediate reference to the spiritual or eternal happiness of man, in\nthat he entered into a covenant of life with him, under which head we\nare to consider the personal concerns of our first parents therein.[45]\n\n(1.) The dispensation they were under was that of a covenant. This is\nallowed by most, who acknowledge the imputation of Adam\u2019s sin, and the\nuniversal corruption of nature, as consequent thereupon. And some call\nit, a _covenant of innocency_, inasmuch as it was made with man while he\nwas in a state of innocency; others call it, a _covenant of works_,\nbecause perfect obedience was enjoined, as the condition of it, and so\nit is opposed to the covenant of grace, as there was no provision made\ntherein for any display of grace, as there is in that covenant which we\nare now under; but, in this answer, it is called the _covenant of life_,\nas having respect to the blessings promised therein.\n\nIt may seem indifferent to some, whether it ought to be termed a\ncovenant, or a law of innocency; and, indeed, we would not contend about\nthe use of a word, if many did not design, by what they say, concerning\nits being a law, and not properly a covenant, to prepare the way for the\ndenial of the imputation of Adam\u2019s sin; or did not, at the same time,\nconsider him as no other than the natural head of his posterity, which,\nif it were to be allowed, would effectually overthrow the doctrine of\noriginal sin, as contained in some following answers. Therefore we must\nendeavour to prove that man was not barely under a law, but a covenant\nof works; and, that we may proceed with more clearness, we shall premise\nsome things, in general, concerning the difference between a law and a\ncovenant.\n\nA law is the revealed will of a sovereign, in which a debt of obedience\nis demanded, and a punishment threatened, in proportion to the nature of\nthe offence, in case of disobedience. And here we must consider, that as\na subject is bound to obey a law; so he cannot justly be deprived of\nthat which he has a natural right to, but in case of disobedience;\ntherefore obedience to a law gives him a right to impunity, but nothing\nmore than this; whereas a covenant gives a person a right, upon his\nfulfilling the conditions thereof, to all those privileges, which are\nstipulated, or promised therein. This may be illustrated, by considering\nit as applied to human forms of government, in which it is supposed that\nevery subject is possessed of some things, which he has a natural or\npolitical right to, which he cannot justly be deprived of, unless he\nforfeit them by violating the law, which, as a subject, he was obliged\nto obey; therefore, though his obedience give him a right to impunity,\nor to the undisturbed possession of his life and estate, yet this does\nnot entitle him to any privilege, which he had no natural right to. A\nking is not obliged to advance a subject to great honours, because he\nhas not forfeited his life and estate by rebellion: but in case he had\npromised him, as an act of favour, that he would confer such honours\nupon him, upon condition of his yielding obedience in some particular\ninstances, then he would have a right to them, not as yielding obedience\nto a law, but as fulfilling the conditions of a covenant.\n\nThis may be farther illustrated, by considering the case of\nMephibosheth. He had a natural and legal right to his life and estate,\nwhich descended to him from his father Jonathan, because he behaved\nhimself peaceably, and had not rebelled against David; but this did not\nentitle him to those special favours which David conferred upon him,\nsuch as _eating bread at his table continually_, 2 Sam. ix. 13. for\nthose were the result of a covenant between David and Jonathan; in which\nDavid promised, that he would shew kindness to his house after him. Now,\nto apply this to our present case, if we consider our first parents only\nas under a law, their perfect obedience to it, it is true, would have\ngiven them a right to impunity, since punishment supposes a crime;\ntherefore God could not, consistently with his perfections, have\npunished them, had they not rebelled against him. I do not say, that God\ncould not, in consistency with his perfections, have taken away the\nblessings that he conferred upon them, as creatures, in a way of\nsovereignty, but this he could not do as a judge; so that man would have\nbeen entirely exempted from punishment, as long as he had stood. But\nthis would not, in the least, have entitled him to any superadded\nhappiness, unless there had been a promise made, which gave him ground\nto expect it, in case he yielded obedience; and if there were, then that\ndispensation, which before contained the form of a law, having this\ncircumstance added to it, would afterwards contain the form of a\ncovenant, and so give him a right to that super-added happiness promised\ntherein, according to the tenor of that covenant. Therefore, if we can\nprove (which we shall endeavour to do, before we dismiss this subject)\nnot only that man was obliged to yield perfect obedience, as being under\na law; but that he was given to expect a super-added happiness,\nconsisting either in the grace of confirmation in his present state, or\nin the heavenly blessedness; then it will follow, that he would have had\na right to it, in case of yielding that obedience, according to the\ntenor of this dispensation, as containing in it the nature of a\ncovenant.\n\nThis I apprehend to be the just difference between a law and a covenant,\nas applicable to this present argument, and consequently must conclude,\nthat the dispensation man was under, contained both the ideas of a law\nand a covenant: his relation to God, as a creature, obliged him to yield\nperfect obedience to the divine will, as containing the form of a law;\nand this perfect obedience, had it been performed, would have given him\na right to the heavenly blessedness, by virtue of that promise, which\nGod was pleased to give to man in this dispensation, as it contained in\nit the nature of a covenant. And this will farther appear, when we\nconsider,\n\n(2.) The blessing promised in this covenant, namely, life. This, in\nscripture, is used sometimes to signify temporal, and, at other times,\nspiritual and eternal blessings: we have both these senses joined\ntogether in the apostle\u2019s words, where we read of _the life that now is,\nand that which is to come_, 1 Tim. iv. 8. Moreover, sometimes life and\nblessing, or blessedness, are put together, and opposed to death, as\ncontaining in it all the ingredients of evil, Deut. xxx. 19. in which\nscripture, when Moses exhorts them to choose life, he doth not barely\nintend a natural life, or outward blessings, for these there is no one\nbut chooses, whereas many are hardly persuaded to make choice of\nspiritual life.\n\nIn this head we are upon, we consider life, as including in it, both\nspiritual and eternal blessedness; so it is to be understood, when our\nSaviour says, _Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth\nunto life_; Matt. vii. 14. and elsewhere, _If thou wilt enter into life,\nkeep the commandments_, chap. xix. 17. We must therefore conclude, that\nAdam having such a promise as this made to him, upon condition of\nperfect obedience, he was given to expect some privileges, which he was\nnot then possessed of, which included in them the enjoyment of the\nheavenly blessedness; therefore this dispensation, that he was under,\nmay well be called a covenant of life.\n\nBut, since this is so necessary a subject to be insisted on, we shall\noffer some arguments to prove it. Some have thought that it might be\nproved from Hos. vi. 7. which they choose to render, _They, like Adam,\nhave transgressed the covenant_; from whence they conclude, that Adam\nwas under a covenant; and so they suppose that the word Adam is taken\nfor the proper name of our first parent, as it is probable it is\nelsewhere, _viz._ when Job says, _If I covered my transgressions, as\nAdam_, Job xxxi. 33. alluding to those trifling excuses which Adam made,\nto palliate his sin, immediately after his fall, Gen. iii. 12. And there\nare some expositors who conclude, that this is no improbable sense of\nthis text:[46] yet I would not lay much stress on it; because the words\nmay be rendered as they are in our translation, _They, like men_, &c.\n_q. d._ according to the custom of vain man, they have _transgressed the\ncovenant_; or, they are no better than the rest of mankind, who are\ndisposed to break covenant with God. In the same sense the apostle uses\nthe words, when reproving the Corinthians, he says, _Are ye not carnal,\nand walk as men_, 1 Cor. iii. 3.\n\nTherefore, passing this by, let us enquire, whether it may not, in some\nmeasure, be proved from that scripture, which is often brought for this\npurpose, _In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die_, Gen.\nii. 17. from whence it is argued, that, if man had retained his\nintegrity, he would have been made partaker of the heavenly blessedness.\nMany, indeed, are so far from thinking this an argument to prove this\nmatter, that they bring it as an objection against it, as though God had\ngiven man hereby to understand, that he was not, pursuant to the nature\nof a covenant, to expect any farther degree of happiness than what he\nwas already possessed of; but, agreeably to the sanction of a law, death\nwas to be inflicted, in case of disobedience; and life, that is, the\nstate in which he was created, should be continued, as long as he\nretained his integrity. As when a legislator threatens his subjects with\ndeath, in case they are guilty of rebellion, nothing can be inferred\nfrom thence, but that, if they do not rebel, they shall be continued in\nthe quiet possession of what they had a natural right to, as subjects,\nand not that they should be advanced to a higher degree of dignity. This\nsense of the text, indeed, enervates the force of the argument, taken\nfrom it, to prove, that man was under a covenant. But yet I would not\nwholly give it up, as containing in it nothing to support the argument\nwe are defending. For this threatening was denounced, not only to\nsignify God\u2019s will to punish sin, or the certain event that should\nfollow upon it, but as a motive to obedience; and therefore it includes\nin it a promise of life, in case he retained his integrity.\n\nThe question therefore is; what is meant by this life? or, whether it\nhas any respect to the heavenly blessedness? In answer to which, I see\nno reason to conclude but that it has; since that is so often understood\nby the word _life_ in scripture: thus it is said, _Hear and your soul\nshall live_, Isa. lv. 3. and, _If thou wilt enter into life, keep the\ncommandments_, Matt. xix. 17, and in many other places; therefore why\nshould not _life_, in this place, be taken in the same sense? So, on the\nother hand, when death is threatened, in several scriptures it implies a\nprivation of the heavenly blessedness, and not barely a loss of those\nblessings, which we are actually possessed of.\n\nMoreover, Adam could not but know God to be the Fountain of blessedness,\notherwise he would have been very defective in knowledge; and, when he\nlooked into himself, he would find that he was capable of a greater\ndegree of blessedness, than he did at present enjoy, and (which was yet\nmore) he had a desire thereof implanted in his very nature. Now what can\nbe inferred from hence, but that he would conclude that God, who gave\nhim these enlarged desires, after some farther degree of happiness\narising from communion with him, would give him to expect it, in case he\nretained that holiness, which was implanted in his nature?\n\nBut, that it may farther appear that our first parents were given to\nexpect a greater degree of happiness, and consequently that the\ndispensation, that they were under, was properly federal, let it be\nconsidered; that the advantages which Christ came into the world to\nprocure for his people, which are promised to them, in the second\ncovenant, are, for substance,[47] the same with those which man would\nhave enjoyed, had he not fallen; for _he came to seek and to save that\nwhich was lost_, and to procure the recovery of forfeited blessings. But\nChrist came into the world to purchase eternal life for them; therefore\nthis would have been enjoyed, if there had been no need of purchasing\nit, _viz._ if man had retained his integrity.\n\nThe apostle, speaking of the end of Christ\u2019s coming into the world,\nobserves, Gal. iii. 13, 14. not only, that it was to _redeem us from the\ncurse_, or the condemning sentence _of the law_, but that his redeemed\nones might be made partakers of the _blessing of Abraham_, which was a\nvery comprehensive one, including in it, that God would be _his God, his\nshield, and exceeding great reward_, Gen. xvii. 7. compared with chap.\nxv. 1. and the same apostle elsewhere speaks of Christ\u2019s having\n_redeemed them that were under the law_, that is, the curse of the\nviolated law, or covenant, _that we might receive the adoption of sons_,\nGal. iv. 4, 5. that is, that we might be made partakers of all the\nprivileges of God\u2019s children, which certainly include in them eternal\nlife.\n\nAgain, there is another scripture that farther supports this argument,\ntaken from Rom. viii. 3, 4. _What the law could not do, in that it was\nweak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of\nsinful flesh, and, for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the\nrighteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us_; which is as though\nhe should say, according to the tenor of the first covenant, eternal\nlife was not to be expected, since it was become weak, or could not give\nit, because man could not yield perfect obedience, which was the\ncondition thereof: But God\u2019s sending his own Son to perform this\nobedience for us, was an expedient for our attaining that life, which we\ncould not otherwise have enjoyed. This seems to be the general scope and\ndesign of the apostle in this text; and it is agreeable to the sense of\nmany other scriptures, that speak of the advantages that believers\nattain by Christ\u2019s death, as compared with the disadvantages which man\nsustained by Adam\u2019s fall; therefore it follows, that, had Adam stood,\nhe, and all his posterity, would have attained eternal life.\n\nThus we have endeavoured to prove, that God entered into covenant with\nAdam, inasmuch as he was given to expect, that, if he had yielded\nperfect obedience, he should have been possessed of the heavenly\nblessedness. But supposing this be not allowed of, and the arguments\nbrought to prove it are reckoned inconclusive, it would be sufficient to\nour present purpose, and would argue the dispensation that Adam was\nunder to be that of a covenant, if God had only promised him the grace\nof confirmation, and not to transplant him from the earthly to the\nheavenly paradise; for such a privilege as this, which would have\nrendered his fall impossible, would have contained so advantageous a\ncircumstance attending the state in which he was, as would have plainly\nproved the dispensation he was under to be federal. Therefore, before we\ndismiss this head, we shall endeavour to make that appear, and consider,\n\n1. That to be confirmed in a state of holiness and happiness, was\nnecessary to render that state of blessedness, in which he was created\ncompleat; for whatever advantages he was possessed of, it would have\nbeen a great allay to them to consider, that it was possible for him to\nlose them, or through any act of inadvertency, in complying with a\ntemptation to fall, and ruin himself for ever. If the saints in heaven,\nwho are advanced to a greater degree of blessedness, were not confirmed\nin it; if it was possible for them to lose, or fall from it, it would\nrender their joy incomplete; much more would the happiness of Adam have\nbeen so, if he had been to have continued for ever; without this\nprivilege.\n\n2. If he had not had ground to expect the grace of confirmation in\nholiness and happiness, upon his yielding perfect obedience, then this\nperfect obedience, could not, in any respect, in propriety of speaking,\nbe said to have been conditional, unless you suppose it a condition of\nthe blessings which he was then possessed of; which seems not so\nagreeable to the idea contained in the word _condition_, which is\nconsidered as a motive to excite obedience, taken from some blessing,\nwhich would be consequent thereupon. But, if this be not allowed to have\nsufficient weight in it, let me add,\n\n3. That it is agreeable to, and tends very much to advance the glory of\nthe divine goodness, for God not to leave an innocent creature in a\nstate of perpetual uncertainty, as to the continuance of his holiness\nand happiness; which he would have done, had he not promised him the\ngrace of confirmation, whereby he would, by his immediate interposure,\nhave prevented every thing that might have occasioned his fall.\n\n4. This may be farther argued, from the method of God\u2019s dealing with\nother sinless creatures, whom he designed to make completely blessed,\nand so monuments of his abundant goodness. Thus he dealt with the holy\nangels, and thus he will deal with his saints, in another world; the\nformer are, the other shall be, when arrived there, confirmed in\nholiness and happiness; and why should we suppose, that the goodness of\nGod should be less glorified towards man at first, had he retained his\nintegrity? Moreover, this will farther appear, if we consider,\n\n5. That the dispensation of providence, which Adam was under, seems to\ncarry in it the nature of a state of probation. If he was a probationer,\nit must either be for the heavenly glory, or, at least, for a farther\ndegree of happiness, containing in it this grace of confirmation, which\nis the least that can be supposed, if there were any promise given him;\nand, if all other dispensations of providence, towards man, contain so\nmany great and precious promises in them, as it is certain they do; can\nwe suppose that man, in his state of innocency, had no promise given\nhim? And, if he had, then I cannot but conclude, that God entered into\ncovenant with him, which was the thing to be proved.\n\n_Object. 1._ The apostle, in some of the scriptures but now referred to,\ncalls the dispensation, that Adam was under, _a law_; therefore we have\nno ground to call it a covenant.\n\n_Answ._ It is true, it is often called a _law_; but let it be\nconsidered, that it had two ideas included in it, which are not opposite\nto, or inconsistent with each other, namely, that of a law, and a\ncovenant. As man was under a natural and indispensable obligation to\nyield perfect obedience, and was liable to eternal death, in case of\ndisobedience, it had in it the form and sanction of a law; and this is\nnot inconsistent with any thing that has been before suggested, in which\nwe have endeavoured to maintain, that, besides this, there was something\nadded to it that contained the nature of a covenant, which is all that\nwe pretend to prove; and therefore the dispensation may justly take its\ndenomination from one or the other idea, provided, when one is\nmentioned, the other be not excluded. If we call it a law, it was such a\nlaw, as had a promise of super-added blessedness annexed to it; or if\nwe, on the other hand, call it a covenant, it had, notwithstanding, the\nobligation of a law, since it was made with a subject, who was bound,\nwithout regard to his arbitrary choice in this matter, to fulfil the\ndemands thereof.\n\n_Object. 2._ It is farther objected, against what has been said\nconcerning man\u2019s having a promise of the heavenly blessedness given him,\nupon condition of obedience, that this is a privilege peculiarly adapted\nto the gospel-dispensation; and that our Saviour was the first that made\nit known to the world, as the apostle says, that _life and immortality\nis brought to light through the gospel, and made manifest, by the\nappearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ_, 2 Tim. i. 10. and therefore it\nwas not made known by the law, and consequently there was no promise\nthereof made to Adam in innocency; and the apostle says elsewhere, that\n_the way into the holiest of all_, that is, into heaven, _was not yet\nmade manifest, while the first tabernacle was yet standing_, till Christ\ncame, _who obtained eternal redemption for us_, Heb. ix. 8, 11, 12. From\nwhence they argue, that we have no reason to conclude that Adam had any\npromise, or expectation, founded thereon, of the heavenly blessedness;\nand consequently the argument taken from thence to prove, that the\ndispensation he was under, was that of a covenant, is not conclusive.\n\n_Answ._ It seems very strange, that any should infer, from the\nscriptures mentioned in the objection, that eternal life was altogether\nunknown in the world till Christ came into it, inasmuch as the meaning\nof those scriptures is plainly this: in the former of them, when the\napostle speaks of _life and immortality as brought to light by the\ngospel_, nothing else can be intended, but that this is more fully\nrevealed by the gospel, than it was before; or, that Christ revealed\nthis as a purchased possession, in which respect it could not be\nrevealed before. And, if this be opposed to the revelation given to Adam\nof life and immortality, in the first covenant; it may be\nnotwithstanding, distinguished from it: for though the heavenly\nblessedness was contained therein: yet it was not considered, as\nincluding in it the idea of salvation, as it does to us when revealed in\nthe gospel.\n\nAs to the latter of those scriptures, concerning _the way into the\nholiest of all_, that is, into heaven, _not being made manifest while\nthe first tabernacle was yet standing_, the meaning thereof is, that the\nway of our redemption, by Jesus Christ, was not so clearly revealed, or\nwith those circumstances of glory under the ceremonial law, as it is by\nthe gospel; or, at least, whatever discoveries were made thereof, yet\nthe promises had not their full accomplishment, till Christ came and\nerected the gospel-dispensation; this, therefore, doth not, in the\nleast, militate against the argument we are maintaining. Thus concerning\nthe blessing promised in this covenant, namely, life, by which it\nfarther appears to be a federal dispensation.\n\n(3.) We are now to consider the condition of man\u2019s obtaining this\nblessing, which, as it is expressed in this answer, was personal,\nperfect, and perpetual obedience.\n\n1. He was obliged to perform obedience, which was agreeable to his\ncharacter, as a subject, and thereby to own the sovereignty of his\nCreator, and Lawgiver, and the equity of his law, and his right to\ngovern him, according to it, which obligation was natural, necessary,\nand indispensible.\n\n2. This obedience was to be personal, that is, not performed by any\nother in his behalf, and imputed to him, as his obedience was to be\nimputed to all his posterity; and therefore, in that respect, it would\nnot have been personal, as applied to them; but as the obedience of\nChrist is imputed to us in the second covenant.\n\n3. It was to be perfect, without the least defect, and that both in\nheart and life. He was obliged to do every thing that God required, as\nwell as abstain from every thing that he forbade him; therefore we are\nnot to suppose, that it was only his eating the forbidden fruit that\nwould ruin him, though that was the particular sin by which he fell;\nsince his doing any other thing, that was in itself sinful, or his\nneglecting any thing that was required, would equally have occasioned\nhis fall.\n\nBut since we are considering man\u2019s obligation to yield obedience to the\ndivine law, it follows from hence, that it was necessary that there\nshould be an intimation given of the rule, or matter of his obedience,\nand consequently that the law of God should be made known to him; for it\nis absolutely necessary, not only that a law should be enacted, but\npromulgated, before the subject is bound to obey it. Now the law of God\nwas made known to man two ways, agreeable to the twofold distinction\nthereof.\n\n_1st_, The law of nature was written on his heart, in which the wisdom\nof God did as much discover itself, as in the subject matter of this\nlaw. In this respect, the whole law of nature might be said to be made\nknown to him at once; the knowledge of which was communicated to him,\nwith the powers and faculties of his soul, and was, as it were,\ninstamped on his nature; so that he might as well plead, that he was not\nan intelligent creature, as that he was destitute of the knowledge of\nthis law.\n\n_2dly_, As there were, besides this, several other positive laws, that\nman was obliged to yield obedience to, though these could not, properly\nspeaking, be said to be written on his heart; yet he had the knowledge\nhereof communicated to him. Whether this was done all at once, or at\nvarious times, it is not for us to determine; however, this we must\nconclude, that these positive laws could not be known in a way of\nreasoning, as the law of nature might. But, since we have sufficient\nground to conclude, that God was pleased, in different ways and times,\nto communicate his mind and will to man, we are not to suppose that he\nwas destitute of the knowledge of all those positive laws, that he was\nobliged to obey.\n\nWhat the number of these laws was, we know not; but, as there have been,\nin all ages, various positive laws relating to instituted worship,\ndoubtless, Adam had many such laws revealed to him though not mentioned\nin scripture. This I cannot but observe, because some persons use such\nmodes of speaking about this matter, as though there were no other\npositive law, that man was obliged to obey but that of his not eating of\nthe tree of knowledge of good and evil, or, together with it, that which\nrelated to the observation of the sabbath.[48]\n\n4. The obedience, which man was to perform, was to be perpetual; by\nwhich we are not to understand, that it was to be performed to eternity,\nunder the notion of a condition of the covenant, though it certainly\nwas, as this covenant contained in it the obligation of a law. The\nreason of this is very obvious; for, when any thing is performed, as a\ncondition of obtaining a subsequent blessing it is supposed that this\nblessing is not to be conferred till the condition is performed. But\nthat is inconsistent with the eternal duration of this obedience, on the\nperformance whereof the heavenly blessedness was to be conferred; and\ntherefore, though divines often use the word _perpetual_, when treating\non this subject, it must be understood with this limitation, that man\nwas to obey, without any interruption or defect, so long as he remained\nin a state of probation; and this obedience had a peculiar reference to\nthe dispensation, as it was federal: but, when this state of trial was\nover, and the blessing, promised on this condition, conferred, then,\nthough the same obedience was to be performed to eternity, it would not\nbe considered as the condition of a covenant, but as the obligation of a\nlaw. And this leads us to enquire,\n\nWhether we may not, with some degree of probability, without being\nguilty of a sinful curiosity, determine any thing relating to the time\nof man\u2019s continuance in a state of trial, before the blessing promised,\nat least, that part of it, which consisted in the grace of confirmation,\nwould have been conferred upon him. Though I would not enter into any\nsubject that is over-curious, or pretend to determine that which is\naltogether uncertain, yet, I think this is not to be reckoned so,\nespecially if we be not too peremptory, or exceed the bounds of modesty,\nin what respects this matter. All that I shall say, concerning it, is,\nthat it seems very probable that our first parents would have continued\nno longer in this state of probation, but would have attained the grace\nof confirmation, which is a considerable circumstance in the blessing\npromised in this covenant, as soon as they had children arrived to an\nage capable of obeying, or sinning, themselves, which, how long that\nwould have been, it is a vain thing to pretend to determine.\n\nThe reason why divines suppose, that Adam\u2019s state of probation would\nhave continued no longer, is, because these children must then either be\nsupposed to have been confirmed in that state of holiness and happiness,\nin which they were or not. If they had been confirmed therein, then they\nwould have attained the blessings of this covenant, before Adam had\nfulfilled the condition thereof. If they had not been confirmed, then it\nwas possible for them to have fallen, and yet for him to have stood; and\nso his performing the condition of the covenant, would not have procured\nthe blessing thereof for them, which is contrary to the tenor thereof.\nWhen our first parents would have been removed from paradise to heaven,\nand so have attained the perfection of the blessings contained in this\ncovenant, it would be a vain, presumptuous, and unprofitable thing to\nenquire into.\n\n(4.) The last thing observed, in this answer, is what some call the\nseals annexed to this covenant, as an ordinance designed to confirm\ntheir faith therein; and these were the two trees mentioned in Gen. ii.\nof which the tree of life was more properly called a seal, than the tree\nof knowledge of good and evil.\n\n1. Concerning the tree of life, several things may be observed,\n\n_1st_, It was a single tree, not a _species_ of trees, bearing one sort\nof fruit, as some suppose: This is evident, because it is expressly\nsaid, that it was planted _in the midst of the garden_, Gen. ii. 9.\n\n_2dly_, The fruit thereof is said, in the same scripture, to _be\npleasant to the sight, and good for food_, as well as that of other\ntrees, which were ordained for the same purpose. It is a vain thing to\nenquire what sort of fruit it was; and it is better to confess our\nignorance hereof, than to pretend to be wise above what is written.\n\n_3dly_, It is called the tree of life. Some suppose, that the principal,\nif not the only reason, of its being so called, was, because it was\nordained to preserve man\u2019s natural life, or prevent any decay of nature;\nor to restore it, if it were in the least impaired, to its former\nvigour. And accordingly they suppose, that, though man was made\nimmortal, yet some things might have happened to him, which would have\nhad a tendency to impair his health, in some degree, and weaken and\ndestroy the temperament of his body, by which means death would\ngradually, according to the course of nature, be brought upon him: But,\nas a relief against this, he had a remedy always at hand; for the fruit\nof this tree, by a medicinal virtue, would effectually restore him to\nhis former state of health, as much as meat, drink, and rest, have a\nnatural virtue to repair the fatigues, and supply the necessities of\nnature, in those who have the most healthful constitution, which would,\nnotwithstanding, be destroyed, without the use thereof. But, though\nthere be somewhat of spirit and ingenuity in this supposition; yet why\nmay we not suppose, that the use of any other food might have the same\neffect, which would be always ready at hand, whenever he had occasion\nfor it, or wherever he resided?\n\nTherefore I cannot but conclude, that the principal, if not the only\nreason, of the tree of life\u2019s being so called, was because it was, by\nGod\u2019s appointment, a sacramental sign and ordinance for the faith of our\nfirst parents, that, if they retained their integrity, they might be\nassured of the blessed event thereof, to wit, eternal life, of which\nthis was, as it is called in this answer, a pledge; and it contained in\nit the same idea, for substance, as other sacraments do, namely, as it\nwas designed not to confer, but to signify the blessing promised, and as\na farther means to encourage their expectation thereof: Thus our first\nparents were to eat of the fruit of this tree, agreeably to the nature\nof other sacramental signs, with this view, that hereby the thing\nsignified might be brought to their remembrance, and they might take\noccasion, at the same time, to rely on God\u2019s promise, relating to the\nblessing which they expected; and they might be as much assured, that\nthey should attain eternal life, in case they persisted in their\nobedience, as they were, that God had given them this tree, and liberty\nto eat thereof, with the expectation of this blessing signified thereby.\n\nNow, to make it appear, that it was designed as a sacramental sign of\neternal life, which was promised in this covenant, we may consider those\nallusions to it in the New Testament, whereby the heavenly glory is set\nforth: thus it is said, _To him that overcometh will I give to eat of\nthe tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God_, Rev.\nii. 7. and elsewhere, _Blessed are they that do his commandments, that\nthey may have a right to the tree of life_, chap. xxii. 14. It seems\nvery plain, that this respects, in those scriptures, the heavenly glory,\nwhich is called the _New Jerusalem_; or it has a particular application\nto that state of the church, _When God shall wipe away all tears from\ntheir eyes, and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow nor\ncrying_, chap. xxi. 4. and it is mentioned immediately after, _Christ\u2019s\ncoming quickly, and his rewards being with him_, chap. xxii. 12. and\nthere are several other passages, which might be easily observed, which\nagree only with the heavenly state. Therefore, since this glory is thus\ndescribed, why may we not suppose, that the heavenly state was signified\nby this tree to Adam, in paradise?\n\nAnd, that this may farther appear, let it be considered, that nothing is\nmore common, in scripture, than for the Holy Ghost to represent the\nthing signified by the sign: Thus sanctification, which was one thing\nsignified by circumcision, is called, _The circumcision made without\nhands_, Coloss. ii. 11. and regeneration, which is signified by baptism,\nis called, our _being born of water_, John iii. 5. and Christ, whose\ndeath was signified by the passover, is called, _Our Passover_, 1 Cor.\nv. 7. Many other instances, of the like nature, might be produced;\ntherefore, since the heavenly glory is represented by the tree of life,\nwhy may we not suppose, that the reason of its being so called, was,\nbecause it was ordained, at first, to be a sacramental sign or pledge of\neternal life, which our first parents were given to expect, according to\nthe tenor of that covenant, which they were under?\n\n_Object. 1._ It is objected, by some, that sacramental signs,\nceremonies, or types, were only adapted to that dispensation, which the\nchurch of the Jews were under, and therefore were not agreeable to that\nstate in which man was at first.\n\n_Answ._ The ceremonial law, it is true, was not known, nor did it take\nplace, while man was in a state of innocency; nor was it God\u2019s ordinary\nway to instruct him then by signs; yet it is not inconsistent with that\nstate, for God to ordain one or two signs, as ordinances, for the faith\nof our first parents, the signification whereof was adapted to the\nstate, in which they were, any more than our Saviour\u2019s instituting two\nsignificant ordinances under the gospel, _viz._ baptism, and the Lord\u2019s\nsupper, as having relation to the blessings expected therein, is\ninconsistent with this present dispensation, in which we have nothing to\ndo with the ceremonial law, any more than our first parents had. And all\nthis argues nothing more, than that God may, if he pleases, in any state\nof the church, instruct them in those things, which their faith should\nbe conversant about, in what way he pleases.\n\n_Object. 2._ It is farther objected, that the tree of life was not\ndesigned to be a sacramental sign of the covenant, which our first\nparents were under, but rather, as was before observed, an expedient, to\nrender them immortal in a natural way, inasmuch as when man was fallen,\nyet the tree of life had still the same virtue: Accordingly it is said,\n_Lest he put forth his hand, and take of the tree of life, and eat and\nlive for ever; therefore the Lord God sent him forth out of the garden\nof Eden; and he drove out the man_: and _placed cherubim and a flaming\nsword, which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life_,\nGen. iii. 22, 23, 24. And some extend this objection so far, as that\nthey suppose man did not eat of the tree of life before he fell, which,\nhad he done, he would by virtue of his eating of it, have lived for\never, notwithstanding his sin: or if, as soon as he had fallen, he had\nhad that happy thought, and so had eaten of it, he might, even then,\nhave prevented death; and therefore God drove him out of paradise, that\nhe might not eat of it, that so the curse, consequent upon his fall,\nmight take effect.\n\n_Answ._ The absurdity of this objection, and the method of reasoning\nmade use of to support it, will appear, if we consider, that there was\nsomething more lost by man\u2019s fall, besides immortality, which no fruit,\nproduced by any tree, could restore to him. And, besides, man was then\nliable to that curse, which was denounced, by which he was under an\nindispensable necessity of returning to the dust, from whence he was\ntaken; and therefore the tree of life could not make this threatening of\nno effect, though man had eaten of it, after his fall: But, since the\nwhole force of the objection depends on the sense they put on the text\nbefore-mentioned, agreeable thereunto, the only reply that we need give\nto it is, by considering what is the true and proper sense thereof.\n\nWhen it is said, _God drove out the man, lest he should eat of the tree\nof life, and live for ever_; the meaning thereof is, as though he should\nsay, Lest the poor deceived creature, who is now become blind, ignorant,\nand exposed to error, should eat of this tree, and think to live for\never, as he did before the fall, therefore he shall be driven out of\nparadise. This was, in some respect, an act of kindness to him, to\nprevent a mistake, which might have been of a pernicious tendency, in\nturning him aside from seeking salvation in the promised seed. Besides,\nwhen the thing signified, by this tree, was not to be obtained that way,\nin which it was before, it ceased to be a sacramental sign; and\ntherefore, as he had no right to it, so it would have been no less than\na profanation to make a religious use of it, in his fallen state.\n\n2. The other tree, which we read of, whereof our first parents were\nforbidden to eat, upon pain of death, is called, _The tree of knowledge,\nof good and evil_. Though the fruit of this tree was, in itself, proper\nfor food, as well as that of any other; yet God forbade man to eat of\nit, out of his mere sovereignty, and that he might hereby let him know,\nthat he enjoyed nothing but by his grant, and that he must abstain from\nthings apparently good, if he require it. It is a vain thing to pretend\nto determine what sort of fruit this tree produced: it is indeed, a\ncommonly received opinion, that it was an apple tree, or some species\nthereof; but, though I will not determine this to be a vulgar error, yet\nI cannot but think it a groundless conjecture[49]; and therefore I would\nrather profess my ignorance as to this matter.\n\nAs to the reason of its being called the tree of knowledge, of good and\nevil; some have given great scope to their imaginations, in advancing\ngroundless conjectures: thus the Jewish historian[50], and, after him,\nseveral rabbinical writers, have supposed, that it was thus described,\nas there was an internal virtue in the fruit thereof, to brighten the\nminds of men, and, in a natural way, make them wise. And Socinus, and\nsome of his brethren, have so far improved upon this absurd supposition,\nthat they have supposed, that our first parents, before they ate of this\ntree, had not much more knowledge than infants have, which they found on\nthe literal sense they give of that scripture, which represents them as\nnot knowing that they were naked[51]. But enough of these absurdities,\nwhich carry in them their own confutation. I cannot but think, it is\ncalled the tree of knowledge, of good and evil, to signify, that as man\nbefore knew, by experience, what it was to enjoy that good which God had\nconferred upon him, the consequence of his eating thereof would be his\nhaving an experimental knowledge of evil.\n\nAll that I shall add, concerning this prohibition, which God gave to our\nfirst parents, is, that, as to the matter of it, it was one of those\nlaws, which are founded in God\u2019s arbitrary will, and therefore the thing\nwas rendered sinful, only by its being forbidden; nevertheless, man\u2019s\ndisobedience to it rendered him no less guilty, than if he had\ntransgressed any of the laws of nature.\n\nMoreover, it was a very small thing for him to have yielded obedience to\nthis law, which was designed as a trial of his readiness, to perform\nuniversal obedience in all the instances thereof. It was not so\ndifficult a duty, as that which God afterwards commanded Abraham to\nperform, when he bade him offer up his son; neither was he under a\nnecessity of eating thereof, since he had such a liberal provision of\nall things for his sustenance and delight; and therefore his sin, in not\ncomplying herewith, was the more aggravated. Besides, he was expressly\ncautioned against it, and told, that _in the day that he eat of it, he\nshould die_; whereby God, foreseeing that he would disobey this command,\ndetermined to leave him without excuse. This was that transgression by\nwhich he fell, and brought on the world all the miseries that have\nensued thereon.\n\nFootnote 42:\n\n Vide Dr. Wells\u2019 _Sacred Geography_, and the _excursions_ annexed to\n it.\n\nFootnote 43:\n\n _See Quest._ cxxxix.\n\nFootnote 44:\n\n _See Quest._ cxvi.\n\nFootnote 45:\n\n If there had been a period in which there was absolutely no existence,\n there would never have been any thing. Either man, or his Creator, or\n one more remote, has been from eternity, unless we admit the\n contradiction of an eternal succession. But because to create implies\n power and wisdom, which we have not the least reason to imagine any\n creature can possess, either man, and the world he possesses, have\n always been, or their maker. The history of man, the structure of\n languages, the face of the ground, &c. shew that man and his\n habitation have not been from eternity; therefore God is eternal. As\n all excellency is in himself or derived from him, his happiness\n depends only on himself; and the worlds he has made, are so far\n pleasing as they exhibit himself to himself. He could have made his\n intelligent creatures all confirmed in holiness, but he chose to\n confer liberty, which was a blessing till abused. He knew all the\n consequences, and that these would exercise his mercy and justice.\n Partial evil he determined should produce universal good, and that no\n evil should take place, but that which should eventually praise him.\n\n The first intelligent creatures were purely spiritual, and each stood\n or fell for himself. He united in man the spiritual and corporeal\n natures; he formed his soul innocent and holy, and made ample\n provision for the comfort of his body; and as it would have been\n inconvenient to have brought all of the human family, which were to be\n in every generation, upon the earth at one time, and still more so,\n that, every one standing or falling for himself, the earth should be\n the common habitation of beings perfectly holy, happy, and immortal,\n and also of cursed perishing beings, he constituted the first man a\n representative of his race. \u201cLet us make _man_,\u201d the race in one. To\n be fruitful, multiply, fill, and subdue the earth, were directed to\n the race. \u201cIn the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt die.\u201d He did die\n spiritually, he lost his innocence, became the subject of guilt,\n shame, and fear; and all his posterity inherit the fallen nature.\n Being already cursed, when afterwards arraigned and sentenced, it was\n only necessary to curse his enjoyments in this world. His posterity\n were included, for they are subjected to the same afflictions and\n death. If they had not been included in the sentence \u201cdust thou art,\n and unto dust shalt thou return,\u201d as they were a part of his dust, not\n dying, it would not have been accomplished. That he represented the\n race appears also from this, that the command was given to him before\n his wife was formed, and also because it does not appear that her eyes\n were opened to see her guilt, and miserable condition until he had\n eaten of the fruit; then \u201cthe eyes of them both were opened.\u201d\n\n The remedy was provided before the creation, and nothing can be shown\n to prove that it is not complete in every instance when there is not\n actual guilt. That the woman was to have a seed the first parent heard\n announced in the sentence against the tempter, whilst standing in\n suspense momently in expectation of that death which had been\n threatened. If the plural had been used, this could have been no\n intimation of the seed Christ. Why was the word _woman_ used, which\n excludes the man, and not the term _man_, which would have embraced\n both, unless the Son of the virgin was intended? It is all one great\n whole, perfectly seen only to God himself. \u201cO the depth of the riches\n both of the wisdom and knowledge of God; how unsearchable are his\n judgments, and his ways past finding out.\u201d\n\nFootnote 46:\n\n _Vid. Grot. in Hos._ vi. 7. _Mihi latina h\u00e6c interpretatio non\n displicet, ut sensus hic sit; sicut Adam, quia pactum meum violavit,\n expulsus est ex Hedene; ita \u00e6quum est ex sua terra expelli._\n\nFootnote 47:\n\n _When I speak of the advantages being_, for substance the same, _it is\n supposed, that there are some circumstances of glory, in which that\n salvation that was purchased by Christ, differs from that happiness\n which Adam would have been possessed of had he persisted in his\n integrity._\n\nFootnote 48:\n\n Yet it is the better opinion, that he was vulnerable only on one\n point.\n\nFootnote 49:\n\n _The principal argument brought to prove this, is the application of\n that scripture, to this purpose, in Cant. viii. 5._ I raised thee up\n under the apple tree; there thy mother brought thee forth, _as if he\n should say, the church, when, fallen by our first parents eating the\n fruit of this tree, was raised up, when the Messiah was first\n promised. But, though this be a truth, yet whether it be the thing\n intended, by the Holy Ghost, in that scripture, is uncertain. As for\n the opinion of those who suppose it was a fig-tree, as Theodoret,\n [Vid. Quest, xxviii. in Gen.] and some other ancient writers; that has\n no other foundation, but what we read, concerning our first parents\n sewing fig leaves together, and making themselves aprons, which, they\n suppose, was done before they departed from the tree, their shame\n immediately suggesting the necessity thereof. But others think, that\n whatever tree it were, it certainly was not a fig-tree, because it can\n hardly be supposed but that our first parents, having a sense of\n guilt, as well as shame, would be afraid so much as to touch that\n tree, which had occasioned their ruin. Others conclude, that it was a\n vine, because our Saviour appointed that wine, which the vine\n produces, should be used, in commemorating his death, which removed\n the effects of that curse, which sin brought on the world: but this is\n a vain and trifling method of reasoning, and discovers what lengths\n some men run in their absurd glosses on scripture._\n\nFootnote 50:\n\n _Vid. Joseph. Antiquit. Lib. I. cap. 2._\n\nFootnote 51:\n\n _Vid. Socin. de Stat. Prim. Hom. & Smalc. de ver. & Nat. Dei. Fil._\n\n\n\n\n Quest XXI.\n\n\n QUEST. XXI. _Did man continue in that estate wherein God at first\n created him?_\n\n ANSW. Our first parents, being left to the freedom of their own\n will, through the temptation of Satan, transgressed the commandment\n of God, in eating the forbidden fruit, and thereby fell from the\n state of innocency, wherein they were created.\n\nIn this answer,\n\nI. There is something supposed, namely, that our first parents were\nendued with a freedom of will. This is a property belonging to man, as a\nreasonable creature; so that we may as well separate understanding from\nthe mind, as liberty from the will, especially when it is conversant\nabout things within its own sphere, and, most of all, when we consider\nman in a state of perfection, as to all the powers and faculties of his\nsoul, as he was before the fall. Now, that we may understand what this\nfreedom of will was, let it be considered, that it consisted in a power,\nwhich man had, of choosing, or embracing, what appeared, agreeably to\nthe dictates of his understanding, to be good, or refusing and avoiding\nwhat was evil, and that without any constraint or force, laid upon him,\nto act contrary to the dictates thereof; and it also supposes a power to\nact pursuant to what the will chooses, otherwise it could not secure the\nhappiness that it desires, or avoid the evil that it detests, and then\nits liberty would be little more than a name, without the thing\ncontained in it.\n\nMoreover, since the thing that the will chooses, is supposed to be\nagreeable to the dictates of the understanding, it follows, that if\nthere be an error in judgment, or a destructive, or unlawful object\npresents itself, under the notion of good, though it be really evil, the\nwill is, notwithstanding, said to act freely, in choosing or embracing\nit, in which respect it is free to evil, as well as to good.\n\nTo apply this to our present purpose, we must suppose man, in his state\nof innocency, to have been without any defect in his understanding, and\ntherefore that he could not, when making a right use of the powers and\nfaculties of his soul, call evil good, or good evil. Nevertheless,\nthrough inadvertency, the mind might be imposed on, and that which was\nevil might be represented under the appearance of good, and accordingly\nthe will determine itself to choose or embrace it; for this is not\ninconsistent with liberty, since it might have been avoided by the right\nimprovement of his natural powers, and therefore he was not constrained\nor forced to sin.\n\nNow it appears, that our first parents had this freedom of will, or\npower to retain their integrity, from their being under an indispensible\nobligation to yield perfect obedience, and liable to punishment for the\nleast defect thereof. This therefore, supposes the thing not to be in\nitself impossible, or the punishment ensuing unavoidable. Therefore it\nfollows, that they had a power to stand; or, which is all one, a liberty\nof will, to choose that which was conducive to their happiness.\n\nThis might also be argued from the difference that there is between a\nman\u2019s innocent and fallen state. Nothing is more evident, than that man,\nas fallen, is, by a necessity of nature, inclined to sin; and\naccordingly he is styled, _a servant of sin_, John viii. 34. or a slave\nto it, entirely under its dominion: but it was otherwise with him before\nhis fall, when, according to the constitution of his nature, he was\nequally inclined to what is good, and furnished with every thing that\nwas necessary to his yielding that obedience, which was demanded of him.\n\nII. It is farther observed, that our first parents were left to the\nfreedom of their own will. This implies, that God did not design,\nespecially, while they were in this state of probation, to afford them\nthat immediate help, by the interposition of his providence, which would\nhave effectually prevented their compliance with any temptation to sin;\nfor that would have rendered their fall impossible, and would have been\na granting them the blessing of confirmation, before the condition\nthereof was fulfilled. God could easily have prevented Satan\u2019s entrance\ninto paradise; as he does his coming again into heaven, to give\ndisturbance to, or lay snares for any of the inhabitants thereof; or,\nthough he suffered him to assault our first parents, he might, by the\ninterposition of his grace, have prevented that inadvertency, by which\nthey gave the first occasion to his victory over them. There was no need\nfor God to implant a new principle of grace in their souls; for, by the\nright use of the liberty of their own wills, they might have defended\nthemselves against the temptation; and had he given them a present\nintimation of their danger, or especially excited those habits of grace,\nwhich were implanted in their souls, at that time, when there was most\nneed thereof, their sinful compliance with Satan\u2019s temptation would have\nbeen prevented: but this God was not obliged to do; and accordingly he\nis said to leave them to the freedom of their own wills. And this does\nnot render him the author of their sin, or bring them under a natural\nnecessity of falling, inasmuch as he had before furnished them with\nsufficiency of strength to stand. Man was not like an infant, or a\nperson enfeebled, by some bodily distemper, who has no ability to\nsupport himself, and therefore, if not upheld by another, must\nnecessarily fall: but he was like a strong man, who, by taking heed to\nhis steps, may prevent his falling, without the assistance of others. He\nhad no propensity in nature to sin, whereby he stood in need of\npreventing grace; and God, in thus leaving him to himself, dealt with\nhim in a way agreeable to the condition in which he was. He did not\nforce, or incline him to sin, but left him to the mutability of his own\nwill, according to the tenor of the dispensation which he was under.\n\nIII. It is farther observed, that there was an assault made on our first\nparents by Satan, not by violence, but by temptation; the consequence\nwhereof was, that, by sinful compliance therewith, they fell from their\nstate of innocency. It appears very evident, from scripture, that they\nwere deceived, or beguiled, as Eve says, _The serpent beguiled me, and I\ndid eat_, Gen. iii. 13. And the apostle Paul speaks concerning it to the\nsame effect; _The woman being deceived, was in the transgression_, 1\nTim. ii. 14. in which scripture, though it be said, in the foregoing\nwords, that _Adam was not deceived_, probably nothing more than this is\nintended, that the man was not first deceived, or not immediately\ndeceived, by the serpent, but by his wife; though, indeed, some give\nanother turn to that expression, and suppose that Adam sinned knowingly,\nbeing content to plunge himself into the depths of misery, in\ncomplaisance to her, in her sorrows:[52] But we rather think, that the\napostle does not speak of Adam\u2019s not being deceived, but rather of his\nnot being first deceived, or first in the transgression.\n\nNow this deception or temptation, was from the devil, who, because of\nhis subtilty, is called, _That old serpent_, Rev. xii. 9. chap. xx. 2.\nand he is said to make use of _wiles_, Eph. vi. 11. that is, various\nmethods of deceit in suiting his temptations, so that men may be\nensnared by them; which leads us to consider,\n\nIV. The methods he took to deceive our first parents, as we have a\nparticular account thereof, and of their compliance therewith, in Gen.\niii. 1-6. in which we shall take occasion to observe who the tempter\nwas; and the way and manner how he assaulted them.\n\nThere are two extremes of opinion, which some run into, which are\nequally to be avoided. On the one hand, some suppose that it was a\nbeast, or natural serpent, that was the tempter, and that the devil had\nno hand in the temptation; whereas others suppose that there was no\nserpent made use of, but that the devil did all without it, and that he\nis styled a serpent, in that scripture, from his subtilty. This we call\nanother extreme of opinion, and, indeed, the truth lies in a medium\nbetween them both; therefore we must suppose, that there was really a\nnatural serpent, a beast so called, made use of, as an instrument, by\nthe devil, by which he managed the temptation, and accordingly that he\npossessed and spake by it, which is the most common opinion, and agrees\nbest with the account given of it in the above-mentioned scripture; and\nit is also consistent with what our Saviour says of him, when describing\nhim as _a murderer from the beginning_, John viii. 44.\n\nThat it was not only, or principally, the natural serpent that tempted\nour first parents, will appear, if we consider,\n\n(1.) That, though the serpent, indeed, is said to be more subtile than\nall the beasts of the field, yet it never was endowed with speech,[53]\nand therefore could not, unless actuated by a spirit, hold a discourse\nwith Eve, as he is said to have done.\n\n(2.) Brute creatures cannot reason, or argue, as the serpent did; for,\nwhatever appearance of reason there may be in them, it would be a very\nhard matter to prove that they are capable of digesting their ideas into\na chain of reasoning, or inferring consequences from premises, as the\nserpent did; much less are they capable of reasoning about divine\nsubjects, who know nothing of God, or the nature of moral good or evil,\nas the serpent that tempted Eve must be supposed to have done. But\nthough the serpent was not the principal agent herein, yet it was made\nuse of by the devil; and therefore the whole history, which we have\nthereof in the place before-mentioned, is not an allegorical account of\nwhat Satan did, as some suppose, without any regard to the part that the\nserpent bore therein.\n\nThis appears from the curse denounced against the serpent, _Because thou\nhast done this_, saith God, _thou art cursed above all cattle, and above\nevery beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt\nthou eat all the days of thy life_, Gen. iii. 14. which is only\napplicable to the beast so called, and this we see evidently fulfilled\nat this day. Some, from hence, infer, not, I think, without reason, that\nthe serpent, before this, went erect; whereas afterwards, as containing\nthe visible mark of the curse, it is said to go on its belly. This part\nof the curse therefore respected the natural serpent only; whereas that\ncontained in the following words, _I will put enmity between thee and\nthe woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head,\nand thou shalt bruise his heel_, ver. 15. respects the devil, that\nactuated, or spake by it; though I am not insensible that some Jewish\nwriters, and others, who would exempt the devil from having any hand in\nthe temptation, and throw all the blame on the brute creature, the\nnatural serpent, give a very jejune and empty sense of this text, as\nthough it were to be taken altogether, according to the letter thereof,\nas importing, that there should be a war between man and the serpent,\nthat so he might be revenged on him, which should never cease till he\nhad slain him, or had bruised his head. But it seems very plain, that as\nthe former verse respects the instrument made use of, _viz._ the natural\nserpent, so this respects the devil, and contains a prediction, that his\nmalice should be defeated, and his power destroyed, by our Saviour, who\nis here promised, and described as _the seed of the woman_. From all\nwhich we are bound to conclude, that the devil making use of the\nserpent, was the tempter, by whom our first parents were seduced, and\nled astray from God, to the ruin of themselves, and all their posterity.\n\nThere are several things that may be observed in the method Satan took\nin managing this temptation, by which he seduced and overcame our first\nparents, of which we have an account in the scripture before-mentioned.\n\n1. He concealed his character as a fallen spirit, and pretended himself\nto be in circumstances not unlike to those in which our first parents\nwere, at least in this, that he seemed to pay a deference to the great\nGod, so far as to allow that he had a right to give laws to his\ncreatures; and it is more than probable that this was done immediately\nafter his fall, and that our first parents knew nothing of this instance\nof rebellion in heaven, and did not, in the least, suppose that there\nwere any creatures who were enemies to God, or were using endeavours to\nrender them so. Had the devil given Eve an historical narration of his\nsin and fall, and begun his temptation with open blasphemy, or reproach\ncast on God, whom he had rebelled, against, he could not but apprehend\nthat our first parents would have treated him with the utmost\nabhorrence, and fled from him as an open enemy; but he conceals his\nenmity to God, while he pretends friendship to them, which was a great\ninstance of subtilty; inasmuch as an enemy is never more formidable,\nthat when he puts on a specious pretence of religion, or conceals his\nvile character as an enemy to God, and at the same time, pretends a\ngreat deal of friendship to those whom he designs to ruin.\n\n2. As he tempted our first parents soon after his own fall, which shews\nhis restless malice against God and goodness; so it was not long after\ntheir creation, in which he shewed his subtilty, not barely, as some\nsuppose, because he was apprehensive, that the longer man stood, the\nmore his habits of grace would be strengthened, and so it would be more\ndifficult for the temptation to take effect. But that which seems to be\nthe principal reason, was, either because he was apprehensive that man\nmight soon have an intimation given him, that there were some fallen\nspirits, who were laying snares for his ruin, and therefore he would\nhave been more guarded against him; or principally because he did not\nknow but that man might soon be confirmed in this state of holiness and\nhappiness; for how long God would continue him in a state of probation,\nwas not revealed, and the devil knew very well that, upon his obtaining\nthe grace of confirmation, after he had yielded obedience for a time,\nall his temptations would prove ineffectual; therefore he applied\nhimself to his work with the greatest expedition.\n\n3. He assaulted Eve when she was alone. This, indeed, is not expressly\nmentioned in scripture; but yet it seems very probable, inasmuch as he\ndirected his discourse to, and held a conference with her, and not with\nAdam, which doubtless, he would have done, had he been present; and then\nit could hardly have been said, as the apostle does in the scripture\nbefore-mentioned, that the woman was _first in the transgression_, and\nthat she was first deceived by the serpent; and, indeed, had he been\nwith her, though she might have been first in eating the forbidden\nfruit; yet he would have sinned, as being a partaker with her therein,\nby suffering her to comply with the temptation, and not warning her of\nher danger, or endeavouring to detect the devil\u2019s sophistry, and\nrestrain her from compliance therewith. As the law deems every one to be\nprincipals in traiterous conspiracies against a prince, it they are only\npresent, provided they do not use those proper means which they ought to\nprevent it; accordingly if Adam had been with Eve, he would have sinned\nwith her, before he received the forbidden fruit from her hand; which we\ndo not find him charged with; therefore she was alone, on which account\nthe devil took her at the greatest disadvantage; for, as the wise man\nwell observes, _Two are better than one; for if they fall, the one will\nlift up his fellow; but woe to him that is alone when he falleth_,\nEccles. iv. 9, 10.\n\n4. The instrument Satan made use of, was, as was before observed, the\nserpent: Probably he was not suffered to take a human shape; or, if he\nhad, that would not so well have answered his end, since it would have\ntended to amuse and surprise our first parents, and have put them upon\nenquiries who he was, and whence he came, for they knew that there were\nno human creatures formed but themselves. If he had made use of an\ninanimate creature, it would have been more surprising to hear it speak\nand reason about the providence of God; and if he had not assumed, any\nvisible shape, he could not have managed the temptation with that\nsuccess; for there was no corrupt nature in our first parents to work\nupon, as there is in us. Therefore some are ready to conclude, that no\ntemptation can be offered to an innocent creature, in an internal way,\nby the devil; therefore it must be presented to the senses, and\nconsequently it was necessary that he should assume some shape, and\nparticularly that of some brute creature, that he might more effectually\ncarry on his temptation. And it was expedient to answer his design, that\nhe should not make use of any brute creature, that is naturally more\nstupid, and therefore less fit for his purpose; accordingly he made use\nof the serpent, concerning which it is observed, that it is _more subtil\nthan any beast of the field;_ and, as some suppose, it was, at first, a\nvery beautiful creature, however odious it is to mankind at present, and\nthat it had a bright shining skin curiously painted with variety of\ncolours, which, when the sun shone upon it, cast a bright reflection of\nall the colours of the rainbow. But passing this by, as what is\nuncertain;\n\n5. It is probable that the devil took that opportunity to discourse with\nEve about the tree of knowledge, when she was standing by, or at least,\nnot far from it, that so he might prevail with her to comply with the\ntemptation in haste; whereas, if he had given her room for too much\ndeliberation, it might have prevented his design from taking effect: If\nshe had been at some distance from the tree, she would have had time to\nconsider what she was going about; she did not want understanding to\ndetect the fallacy, had she duly weighed matters, and therefore would\nhardly have complied with the temptation. Again, that she was, at least,\nwithin sight of the tree appears from hence, that the serpent takes\noccasion, from the beholding of it, to discourse about it, and commend\nit; and, while he was speaking about it to her, _she saw that it was\npleasant to the eye, and good for food_.\n\n6. As to what respects the matter of the temptation, we may observe,\nthat the devil did not immediately tempt her to blaspheme God, to\nproclaim open war against him, or to break one of the commandments of\nthe moral law; but to violate a positive law, which, though heinous in\nits own nature, as it was a practical disowning or denying the\nsovereignty of God, and had many other aggravations attending it; yet\nthe breach of positive laws, founded on God\u2019s arbitrary will, are\ngenerally reckoned less aggravated, or we are inclined to entertain the\ntemptation thereunto with less abhorrence than when we are tempted to\nbreak one of the moral laws, which are founded on the nature of God. Had\nhe tempted her to deny that there was a God, or that there was any\nworship due to him; or had it been to have murdered her husband, or to\ncommit any other crime, which is in itself shocking to human nature, he\nwould have had less ground to conclude that his temptation would have\ntaken effect.\n\nAnd here we may observe, that he proceeded, in a gradual way, from less\nto greater insinuations, brought against God.\n\n(1.) He does not immediately and directly, in his first onset, bring a\ncharge against God, or his providence, but pretends ignorance, and\nspeaks as one that wanted information, when he says, _Yea, hath God\nsaid, Ye shall not eat of every tree in the garden_, _q. d._ Here is a\ngarden well stored with fruit, the trees whereof are designed for your\nfood; are there any of which you are prohibited to eat? This question\noccasions her reply; _The woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the\nfruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is\nin the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it;\nneither shall ye touch it, lest ye die_. Some think, that her sin began\nhere, and that she misrepresents the divine prohibition, for she was not\nforbid to touch it; it is only said, _In the day that thou eatest\nthereof thou shalt surely die_, Gen. ii. 17. But I cannot see that this\nwas any other than a just inference from the prohibition itself, as\nevery thing is to be avoided that may prove an occasion of sin, as well\nas the sin itself. Others suppose, that there is a degree of unbelief\ncontained in that expression, _Lest ye die_[54]; which may be rendered,\n_Lest peradventure ye die_, as implying, that it was possible for God to\ndispense with his threatning, and so death would not certainly ensue;\nwhereas God had expressly said, _In the day that thou eatest thereof,\nthou shalt surely die_. But passing by this, as an uncertain conjecture,\nlet us farther consider,\n\n(2.) After this, Satan proceeds from questioning, as though he desired\ninformation, to a direct and explicit confronting the divine threatning,\nendeavouring to persuade her, that God would not be just to his word,\nwhen he says, _Ye shall not surely die_. He then proceeds yet farther,\nto cast an open reproach on the great God, when he says, _God doth know\nthat in the day ye eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall\nbe as Gods, knowing good and evil_. Here we may observe,\n\n_1st_, That he prefaces this reproach in a most vile and wicked manner,\nwith an appeal to God for a confirmation of what he was about falsely to\nsuggest, _God doth know_, &c.\n\n_2dly_, He puts her in mind, that there were some creatures above her,\nwith an intent to excite in her pride and envy: and it is as though he\nhad said; notwithstanding your dominion over the creatures in this lower\nworld, there are other creatures above you; for so our translation\nrenders the words, _gods_, meaning the angels. And Satan farther\nsuggests, that these excel man, as in many other things, so particularly\nin knowledge, thereby tempting her to be discontented with her present\ncondition; and, since knowledge is the highest of all natural\nexcellencies, he tempts her hereby to desire a greater degree thereof,\nthan God had allotted her, especially in her present state, and so to\ndesire to be equal to the angels in knowledge; which might seem to her a\nplausible suggestion, since knowledge is a desirable perfection. He does\nnot commend the knowledge of fallen angels, or persuade her to desire to\nbe like those who are the greatest favourites of God. From whence it may\nbe observed, that it is a sin to desire many things that are in\nthemselves excellent, provided it be the will of God that we should not\nenjoy them.\n\nBut it may be observed, that a different sense may be given of the\nHebrew word, which we translate _gods_: for it may as well be rendered,\nYe shall be like God, that is, Ye shall have a greater degree of the\nimage of God; particularly that part of it that consists in knowledge.\nBut however plausible this suggestion might seem to be, she ought not to\nhave desired this privilege, if God did not design to give it,\nespecially before the condition of the covenant she was under was\nperformed; much less ought she to have ventured to have sinned against\nGod to obtain it.\n\n_3dly_, Satan farther suggests, that her eating of the tree of knowledge\nwould be a means to attain this greater degree of knowledge; therefore\nhe says, _In the day you eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened_, &c. We\ncannot suppose, that he thought her so stupid as to conclude that there\nwas a natural virtue in the fruit of this tree, to produce this effect;\nfor none can reasonably suppose that there is a natural connexion\nbetween eating and increasing in knowledge. Therefore we may suppose,\nthat he pretends that the eating thereof was God\u2019s ordinance for the\nattaining of knowledge; so that, as the tree of life was a sacramental\nordinance, to signify man\u2019s attaining eternal life, this tree was an\nordinance for her attaining knowledge; and therefore that God\u2019s design\nin prohibiting her from eating of it, was, that she should be kept in\nignorance, in comparison with what she might attain to by eating of it:\nVile and blasphemous insinuation! to suggest, not only that God envied\nher a privilege, which would have been so highly advantageous, but that\nthe sinful violation of his law was an ordinance to obtain it.\n\nIt is farther supposed, by some, though not mentioned in scripture, that\nSatan, to make his temptation more effectual, took and ate of the tree\nhimself, and pretended, as an argument to persuade her to do likewise,\nthat it was by this means, that he, being a serpent, and as such on a\nlevel with other animals of the same species, had arrived to the faculty\nof talking and reasoning, so that now he had attained a kind of equality\nwith man; therefore if she eat of the same fruit, she might easily\nsuppose she should attain to be equal with angels. By these temptations,\nEve was prevailed on, and so we read, that she _took of the fruit\nthereof and did eat_; it may be, the fruit was plucked off by the\nserpent, and held out to her, and she, with a trembling hand, received\nit from him, and thereby fell from her state of innocency.\n\nHaving considered the fall of Eve, who was the first in the\ntransgression, we are now to speak of the fall of Adam: This is\nexpressed more concisely in the fore-mentioned chapter, ver. 6. _She\ngave also unto her husband, and he did eat_. We are not to suppose that\nshe gave him this fruit to eat, without his consent to take it; or that\nshe did not preface this action with something not recorded in\nscripture: but it is most probable that she reported to him what had\npassed between her and the serpent, and prevailed on him by the same\narguments which she was overcome by; so that Adam\u2019s fall was, in some\nrespect, owing to the devil, though Eve was the more immediate\ninstrument thereof. And to this we may add, that, besides her alleging\nthe arguments which the serpent had used to seduce her, it is more than\nprobable she continued eating herself, and commending the pleasantness\nof the taste thereof, above all other fruits, as it might seem to her,\nwhen fallen, to be much more pleasant than really it was; for forbidden\nfruit is sweet to corrupt nature. And besides, we may suppose, that,\nthrough a bold presumption, and the blindness of her mind, and the\nhardness of her heart, which immediately ensued on her fall, she might\ninsinuate to her husband, that what the serpent had suggested was really\ntrue; for as he had said, Ye shall not surely die, so now, though she\nhad eaten thereof, she was yet alive; and therefore that he might eat\nthereof, without fearing any evil consequence that would attend it: by\nthis means he was prevailed upon, and hereby the ruin of mankind was\ncompleted. Thus concerning their sin and fall.\n\nV. We shall now consider what followed thereupon, as contained in that\nfarther account we have of it, in Gen. iii. 7, &c. And here we may\nobserve,\n\n1. That they immediately betray and discover their fallen state,\ninasmuch as they, who before knew not what shame or fear meant, now\nexperienced these consequences inseparable from sin: They knew that they\nwere naked, and accordingly they were ashamed;[55] and had a sense of\nguilt in their consciences, and therefore were afraid. This appears, in\nthat:\n\n2. God calls them to an account for what they had done, and they,\nthrough fear, hide themselves from his presence; which shews how soon\nignorance followed after the fall. How unreasonable was it to think that\nthey could hide themselves from God? since _there is no darkness, nor\nshadow of death, where the workers of iniquity may hide themselves_, Job\nxxxiv. 22.\n\n3. God expostulates with each of them, and they make excuses; the man\nlays the blame upon his wife, ver. 12. _The woman, whom thou gavest to\nbe with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat_; which contains a\ncharge against God himself, as throwing the blame on his providence,\n_The woman whom thou gavest to be with me_. And here was an instance of\na breach of affection between him and his wife: as sin occasions\nbreaches in families, and, an alienation of affection in the nearest\nrelations, he complains of her, as the cause of his ruin, as though he\nhad not been active in this matter himself.\n\nThe woman, on the other hand, lays the whole blame on the serpent, ver.\n13. _The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat_. There was, indeed, a\ndeception or beguiling; for, as has been already observed, an innocent\ncreature can hardly sin, but through inadvertency, as not apprehending\nthe subtilty of the temptation, though a fallen creature sins\npresumptuously, and with deliberation; however, she should not have laid\nthe whole blame on the serpent, for she had wisdom enough to have\ndetected the fallacy, and rectitude of nature sufficient to have\npreserved her from compliance with the temptation, if she had improved\nthose endowments which God gave her at first.\n\nWe shall now consider the aggravations of the sin of our first parents.\nIt contained in it many other sins. Some have taken pains to shew how\nthey broke all the Ten Commandments, in particular instances: But,\npassing that by, it is certain, that they broke most of them, and those\nboth of the first and second table; and it may truly be said, that, by\nlosing their innocency, and corrupting, defiling, and depraving their\nnature, and rendering themselves weak, and unable to perform obedience\nto any command, as they ought, they were virtually guilty of the breach\nof them all, as the apostle says, _Whosoever shall keep the whole law,\nand yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all_, James ii. 10. But,\nmore particularly, there were several sins contained in this complicated\ncrime; as,\n\n(1.) A vain curiosity to know more than what was consistent with their\npresent condition, or, at least, a desire of increasing in knowledge in\nan unlawful way.\n\n(2.) Discontentment with their present condition; though without the\nleast shadow of reason leading to it.\n\n(3.) Pride and ambition, to be like the angels, or like God, in those\nthings, in which it was unlawful to desire it: it may be, they might\ndesire to be like him in independency, absolute sovereignty, _&c._ which\ncarries in it downright Atheism, for a creature to desire thus to be\nlike to him.\n\n(4.) There was an instance of profaneness, in supposing that this tree\nwas God\u2019s ordinance, for the attaining of knowledge, and accounting\nthat, which was in itself sinful, a means to procure a greater degree of\nhappiness.\n\n(5.) It contained in it unbelief, and a disregard, either to the promise\nannexed to the covenant given to excite obedience, or the threatening\ndenounced to deter from sin; and, on the other hand, they gave credit to\nthe devil, rather than God.\n\n(6.) There was in it an instance of bold and daring presumption,\nconcluding that all would be well with them, or that they should,\nnotwithstanding, remain happy, though in open rebellion against God, by\nthe violation of his law; concluding, as the serpent suggested, that\nthey should not surely die.\n\n(7.) It was the highest instance of ingratitude, inasmuch as it was\ncommitted soon after they had received their being from God, and that\nhonour of having all things in this world put under their feet, and the\ngreatest plenty of provisions, both for their satisfaction and delight,\nand no tree of the garden prohibited, but only that which they ate of,\nGen. ii. 16, 17.\n\n(8.) It was committed against an express warning to the contrary;\ntherefore whatever dispute might arise concerning other things being\nlawful, or unlawful, there was no question but that this was a sin,\nbecause expressly forbidden by God, and a caution given them to abstain\nfrom it.\n\n(9.) If we consider them as endowed with a rectitude of nature, and in\nparticular that great degree of knowledge which God gave them: This must\nbe reckoned a sin against the greatest light; so that what inadvertency\nsoever there might have been, as to what respects that which first led\nthe way to a sinful compliance: they had a sufficient degree of\nknowledge to have fenced against the snare, how much soever they\npretended themselves to be beguiled and deceived, as an excuse for their\nsin; and, had they made a right use of their knowledge, they would\ncertainly have avoided it.\n\n(10.) Inasmuch as one of our first parents proved a tempter to the\nother, and the occasion of his ruin, this contained a notorious instance\nof that want of conjugal affection and concern for the welfare of each\nother, which the law of nature, and the relation they stood in to one\nanother, required.\n\n(11.) As our first parents were made after the image of God, this sin\ncontained their casting contempt upon it; for they could not but know\nthat it would despoil them of it. And as eternal blessedness was to be\nexpected if they yielded obedience, this they also contemned, and, as\nevery sinner does, they despised their own souls in so doing.\n\n(12.) As Adam was a public person, the federal head of all his\nposterity, intrusted with the important affair of their happiness,\nthough he knew that his fall would ruin them, together with himself,\nthere was not only in it a breach of trust, but a rendering himself, by\nthis means, the common destroyer of all mankind; which was a greater\nreproach to him, than his being their common father was an honour.\n\nWe shall conclude with a few inferences from what has been said,\nconcerning the fall of our first parents.\n\n_1st_, If barely the mutability of man\u2019s will, without any propensity or\ninclination to sin in his nature, may endanger, though not necessitate,\nhis fall, especially when left to himself, as the result of God\u2019s\nsovereign will; then how deplorable is the state of fallen man, when\nleft to himself by God in a judicial way, being, at the same time,\nindisposed for any thing that is good.\n\n_2dly_, From the action of the devil, in attempting to ruin man, without\nthe least provocation, merely out of malice against God, we may infer\nthe vile and heinous nature of sin, its irreconcilable opposition to\nGod; and also how much they resemble the devil, who endeavour to\npersuade others to join with them as confederates in iniquity, and\nthereby to bring them under the same condemnation with themselves: this\nis contrary to the dictates of human nature, unless considered as vile,\ndegenerate, and depraved by sin.\n\n_3dly_, How dangerous a thing is it to go in the way of temptation, or\nto parley with it, and not to resist the first motion that is made to\nturn us aside from our duty? And what need have we daily to pray, as\ninstructed by our Saviour, that God would not, by any occurrence of\nprovidence, lead us into temptation!\n\n_4thly_, We learn, from hence, the progress and great increase of sin:\nit is like a spreading leprosy, and arises to a great height from small\nbeginnings; so that persons proceed from one degree of wickedness to\nanother, without considering what will be the sad effect and consequence\nthereof.\n\nFootnote 52:\n\n _This is beautifully described by Milton, (in his paradise lost, Book\n IX.) and many others have asserted the same thing for substance, as\n thinking it below the wisdom of the man to be imposed on; thereby\n insinuating, though without sufficient ground, that he had a greater\n degree of wisdom allotted to him than his wife._\n\nFootnote 53:\n\n _Josephus indeed, (See Antiq. Lib. I. cap. 2.) intimates, that the\n serpent was, at first, endowed with speech, and that his loss of it\n was inflicted for his tempting man; but it is a groundless conjecture\n arising from a supposition, that those things spoken of in Gen._ iii.\n _which are attributed to the devil, were done without him, which is\n not only his opinion, but of many other Jewish writers, and several\n modern ones._\n\nFootnote 54:\n\n _The words of the prohibition, in Gen._ ii. _17. are_, Ye shall surely\n die: _whereas in the account she gives thereof to the serpent, her\n words are_, \u05e4\u05df \u05ea\u05de\u05ea\u05d5\u05df _which Onkelos, in his Targum, renders_, Ne forte\n moriamini.\n\nFootnote 55:\n\n The command had been given to Adam: he was the representative of Eve\n and his posterity; accordingly, upon her eating, no change was\n discovered: but as soon as he ate, \u201c_the eyes of them both were\n opened_.\u201d They instantly felt a conscious loss of innocence, and they\n were ashamed of their condition.\n\n This affection may have either good or evil as its exciting cause. The\n one species is praise-worthy, the other culpable. When there exists\n shame of evil, the honour of the party has been wounded.\n\n Honour, the boast of the irreligious, is the vanguard of virtue, and\n is always set for her defence, while she is contented with her own\n station. But when honour assumes the authority, which belongs to\n conscience and reason, the man becomes an idolater. For conscience\n aims at God\u2019s glory, honour at man\u2019s; conscience leads to perfect\n integrity, whilst honour is contented with the reputation of it: the\n one makes us good, the other desires to become respectable. Conscience\n and religion will produce that, which honour aims at the name of.\n Honour without virtue, is mere hypocrisy.\n\n But honour as ancillary to virtue, will detect and vanquish\n temptation, before virtue may apprehend danger: she is therefore to be\n regarded and fostered, but to be restrained within her own precincts.\n\n Shame of good is rather an evidence of a want of honour, and springs\n from dastardly cowardice: it argues weak faith, superficial knowledge,\n and languid desires of good. Such knowledge and desires are barely\n enough to aggravate the guilt, and show it was deliberate.\n\n The religious man must count upon opposition from a world hostile to\n holiness. His conduct and character will necessarily, by contrast,\n condemn those of the wicked. But he is neither to abandon his duty,\n but cause his light to shine; nor purposely afflict the sensibility of\n his enemies, but treat them with mildness and kindness. The demure and\n dejected countenance is to be avoided, not only because the Christian\n has a right to be cheerful, but because when voluntary, it is\n hypocritical; and because also it injures the cause by exciting\n disgust and contempt, and provoking persecution, where a mild and\n evenly deportment would command the respect and admiration even of the\n evil themselves.\n\n Contempt and ridicule will come. But the Christian should know that\n this indicates defect in the authors of them. If religion were, as the\n infidel hopes it will prove, without foundation, to ridicule the\n conscientious man for his weakness, is rudeness, weakness, and want of\n generosity. If religion be doubtful, to ridicule it is to run the\n hazard of Divine resentment, and highly imprudent. If it be certain,\n it is to rush upon the bosses of God\u2019s buckler, and the most horrid\n insolence.\n\n Ridicule is no test of truth, for the greatest and most important\n truths may be subjected to wit; it is no index of strength of\n understanding; and wit and great knowledge almost never are found\n together. It indicates nothing noble or generous, but a little\n piddling genius, and contemptible pride.\n\n He who yields to the shame of that which is good, weakens his powers\n of resistance, provokes the Spirit of grace, hardens his conscience,\n strengthens the hands of the enemy, excites the contempt of the wicked\n themselves, grieves his follow Christians, affronts God to his face,\n and incurs the judgment of Christ \u201cWhosoever is ashamed of me and my\n words, of him will I be ashamed.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n Quest. XXII.\n\n\n QUEST. XXII. _Did all mankind fall in that first transgression?_\n\n ANSW. The covenant being made with Adam, as a public person, not for\n himself only, but for his posterity, all mankind descending from him\n by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him in that\n first transgression.\n\nHaving shewn, in the foregoing answer how our first parents sinned and\nfell, we are now led to consider, how their fall affected all their\nposterity, whom they represented; and accordingly it is said, that the\ncovenant was made with Adam, as a federal head, not for himself only,\nbut all his posterity; so that they sinned in, and fell with him. But,\nbefore we enter more particularly on this subject, it may not be\nimproper to enquire, whether this character, of being the head of the\ncovenant, respects only Adam, or both our first parents? I am sensible\nthere are many who think this covenant was made with Adam, as the head\nof his posterity, exclusive of Eve; so that, as he did not represent her\ntherein, but his seed, she was not, together with him, the\nrepresentative of mankind; therefore, though the covenant was made with\nher, and she was equally obliged to perform the conditions thereof, yet\nshe was only to stand or fall for herself, her concern herein being only\npersonal; and therefore it follows, from hence, that when she fell,\nbeing _first in the transgression_, all mankind could not be said to sin\nand fall in her, as they did in Adam; therefore, if she alone had\nsinned, she would have perished alone.\n\nAnd if it be objected hereunto, that she could not then be the mother of\ninnocent children, for _who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?_\nThe reply, which is usually given to this, which is only matter of\nconjecture, is, that God would have created some other woman, who should\nhave been the mother of a sinless posterity.[56]\n\nThe reason why these conclude that the covenant was made only with Adam,\nis because we never read expressly, in scripture, of its being made with\nEve in behalf of her posterity; and particularly it is said, in Gen. ii.\n16, 17. that _the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree in\nthe garden thou mayest freely eat; but of the tree of knowledge of good\nand evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day thou eatest thereof,\nthou shalt surely die_. And it is observed, that this law was given to\nhim before the woman was created; for it said, in the following words,\n_It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him an help meet\nfor him_. And, in other scriptures, which treat of this matter, we read\nof the man\u2019s being the head of the covenant, but not his wife: thus the\napostle, in 1 Cor. xv. 45, 47. compares him, whom he styles, _the first\nman, Adam_, as the head of this covenant, with Christ, whom he calls,\n_The second man_, as the head of the covenant of grace; and elsewhere he\nsays, _As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive_, ver.\n22. and again _By one man sin entered into the world_, &c. Rom. v. 12.\nand _By one man\u2019s disobedience, many were made sinners_, ver. 19. It is\nnot said by the disobedience of our first parents, but of one of them,\nto wit, Adam; therefore, from hence, they conclude, that he only was the\nhead of this covenant, and herein the representative of mankind.\n\nBut, though I would not be too peremptory in determining this matter,\nyet, I think, it may be replied to what has been said in defence\nthereof; that though it is true, it is said, in the scripture, but now\nmentioned, that God forbade the man to eat of the tree of knowledge of\ngood and evil, before the woman was created, yet she expressly says,\nthat the prohibition respected them both[57], when she tells the\nserpent, _We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the\nfruit of the tree in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall\nnot eat thereof, lest ye die_, Gen. iii. 2, 3. Besides, we read, that\nEve had dominion over the creatures, as well as Adam, Gen. i. 26-28. it\nis true, it is said, that _God created man_, &c. but by the word _man_,\nboth our first parents are intended; for it immediately follows, _and he\nblessed them_, therefore the woman was not excluded; so that we may\napply the apostle\u2019s words, (though used with another view) _The man is\nnot without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord_, 1\nCor. xi. 11. to this particular dispensation of providence. And there\nseems to be the same reason for one\u2019s being constituted the federal head\nof their posterity, as the other, since they were both designed to be\nthe common parents thereof; the tenor of the covenant seems to be the\nsame with respect to them both, and the tree of life was a seal and\npledge of blessings, to be conveyed by both.\n\nBut to proceed to consider the subject-matter of this answer,\n\nI. We shall prove, that Adam was a public person, the head of the\ncovenant with whom it was made for himself, and all his posterity. When\nwe speak of him as the head of our posterity, we do not only mean their\ncommon parent, for, had there been no other idea contained therein, I\ncannot see how they could be said to fall in him; for it doth not seem\nagreeable to the justice of God to punish children for their parents\u2019\nsins, unless they make them their own, at least, not with such a\npunishment that carries in it a separation from his presence, and a\nliableness to the condemning sentence of the law.\n\nTherefore Adam must be considered as constituted their head, in a\nfederal way, by an act of God\u2019s sovereign will, and so must be regarded\nas their representative, as well as their common parent; which, if it\ncan be proved, then they may be said to fall with him. For the\nunderstanding hereof, we must conclude him to have been the head of the\nworld, even as Christ is the Head of his elect; so that, in the same\nsense as Christ\u2019s righteousness becomes their\u2019s to wit, by imputation,\nAdam\u2019s obedience, had he stood, would have been imputed to all his\nposterity, as his sin is, now he is fallen. This is a doctrine founded\non pure revelation: and therefore we must have recourse to scripture, to\nevince the truth thereof. Accordingly,\n\n1. There are several scriptures in which this doctrine is contained; as\nthat in Rom. v. 14. where the apostle speaks concerning our fall in\nAdam, whom he calls, the _figure_[58] _of him that was to come_. Now, in\nwhat was Adam a type of Christ? Not as he was a man, consisting of soul\nand body; for, in that respect, all that lived before Christ, might as\njustly be called types of him. Whenever we read of any person, or\nthings, being a type in scripture, there are some peculiar circumstances\nby which they may be distinguished from all other persons, or things\nthat are not types. Now Adam was distinguished from all other persons,\nmore especially as he was the federal head of all his posterity; and\nthat he was so, appears from what the apostle not only occasionally\nmentions, but largely insists on, and shews in what respect this was\ntrue; and he particularly observes, that as one conveyed death the other\nwas the head, or Prince of Life. These respective things indeed, were\ndirectly opposite, therefore the analogy, or resemblance, consisted only\nin the manner of conveying them; so that as death did not become due to\nus, in the first instance of our liableness to it, for our own actual\nsin, but the sin of Adam; that right we have to eternal life, by\njustification, is not the result of our own obedience, but Christ\u2019s:\nThis is plainly the apostle\u2019s method of reasoning. Now, if Christ was,\nin this respect a federal Head and Representative of his people, then\nAdam, who is in this, or in nothing, his type, or figure, must be the\nHead of a covenant, in which his posterity were included.\n\nThere is another scripture, by which this may be proved in 1 Cor. xv.\n45-59. where the apostle speaks of the _first and second Adam_; by the\nlatter he means Christ. Now, why should he be called the second man, who\nlived so many ages after Adam, if he did not design to speak of him, as\ntypified by him, or bearing some resemblance of him? And, in other\nexpressions, he seems to imply as much, and shews how we derive death\nfrom Adam, of whom he had been speaking, in the foregoing verses.\nAccordingly, he says, _The first man was of the earth, earthy: and, as\nis the earthy, such are they also that are earthy, and we have borne the\nimage of the earthy_; so that if Adam was the root and occasion of all\nthe miseries we endure in this world, arising from his violation of the\ncovenant he was under, it plainly proves, that he was therein the head\nand representative of all his posterity.\n\nFor the farther proof of this, we may take occasion to consider the\napostle\u2019s method of reasoning, in the scripture but now referred to, _By\none man sin entered into the world_, that is, by the first man, _in whom\nall have sinned_, Rom. v. 12. so I would choose to render it rather than\nas it is in our translation, since this seems to be the most natural\nsense of the word[59]; and it proves Adam, in whom all sinned, to be\ntheir head and representative, and also agrees best with the apostle\u2019s\ngeneral design, or argument, insisted on, and farther illustrated in the\nfollowing verses.\n\nAgain, the apostle speaks of those penal evils consequent on Adam\u2019s\nsins, which could not have befallen us, had he not been our federal\nhead and representative; Thus, in ver. 18. _By the offence of one,\njudgment came upon all men to condemnation_[60]. It may be observed,\nthat the apostle, in this text, uses a word, which we translate\n_condemnation_[61]; which cannot, with any manner of consistency, be\ntaken in any other than a forensick sense; and therefore he argues,\nfrom thence, that we are liable to condemnation, by the offence of\nAdam; which certainly proves the imputation of his offence to us, and\nconsequently he is considered therein as our federal head.\n\n2. This farther appears, in that all mankind are exposed to many\nmiseries, and to death, which are of a penal nature; therefore they must\nbe considered, as the consequence of sin. Now they cannot be the\nconsequence of actual sin, in those, who are miserable and die, as soon\nas they are born, who have not _sinned after the similitude of Adam\u2019s\ntransgression_; therefore this must be the result of his sin, which it\ncould not be, had he not been the federal head of all his posterity.[62]\n\n_Object._ It is objected to this, that God might, out of his mere\nsovereignty, ordain that his creatures should be exposed to some degree\nof misery; and, if this misery be not considered, as the punishment of\nsin, in infants, then it does not prove the imputation of Adam\u2019s sin to\nthem; and even their death, considered only as a separation of soul and\nbody, may not contain in it a proper idea of punishment, (which consists\nin the stroke of justice, demanding satisfaction for sin) if it be only\nreckoned an expedient, or a necessary means for their attaining eternal\nlife. Therefore it doth not follow, that, because we are liable to\ndeath, before we have done good or evil, it must necessarily be a\npunishment due to that sin, which was committed by Adam.\n\n_Answ. 1._ I will not deny but that God might dispense some lesser\ndegrees of natural evil, to a sinless creature, out of his mere\nsovereignty; neither will I contend with any, who shall say, that he\nmight, without any dishonour to his perfections, send on him an evil,\nsensibly great, provided it were not only consistent with his love, but\nattended with those manifestations and displays thereof, which would\nmore than compensate for it, and, at the same time, not have any\ntendency to prevent the answering the end of his being; yet I may be\nbold to say, that, from the nature of the thing, God cannot inflict the\nleast degree of punishment on a creature, who is, in all respects\nguiltless. If therefore these lesser evils are penal, they are the\nconsequence of Adam\u2019s sin.\n\n2. As for death, that must be considered as a penal evil; for, as such,\nit was first denounced, as a part of the curse, consequent on Adam\u2019s\nsin; and the apostle says, _The wages of sin is death_, Rom. vi. 23. and\nelsewhere he speaks of all men, as _dying in Adam_, 1 Cor. xv. 22. and\ntherefore his sin is imputed to all mankind; and consequently he was\ntheir federal head and representative in the covenant that he was under.\n\nII. They, whose federal head and representative Adam was, are such as\ndescended from him by ordinary generation. The design of this limitation\nis to signify, that our Saviour is excepted, and consequently that he\ndid not sin or fall in him, inasmuch as he was born of a virgin;\ntherefore, though he had the same human nature with all Adam\u2019s\nposterity, yet he did not derive it from him, in the same way as they\ndo; and a similitude of nature, or his being a true and proper Man, does\nnot render him a descendant from Adam, in the same way as we are. The\nformation of his human nature was the effect of miraculous,\nsupernatural, creating power; therefore he was no more liable to Adam\u2019s\nsin, as being a Man, than a world of men would be, should God create\nthem out of nothing, or out of the dust of the ground, by a mediate\ncreation, which would be no more miraculous, or supernatural, than it\nwas to form the human nature of Christ in the womb of a virgin. Now, as\npersons, so formed, would not be concerned in Adam\u2019s sin, or fall,\nwhatever similitude there might be of nature; even so our Saviour was\nnot concerned therein.[63]\n\nMoreover, that we might understand that he was not included in this\nfederal transaction with Adam, the apostle opposes him, as the _second\nMan_, the federal Head of his elect, or spiritual seed, to Adam, the\n_first man_, and head of his natural seed, in that scripture before\nreferred to, ver. 45. And, as an argument, that his extraordinary and\nmiraculous conception exempted him from any concern in Adam\u2019s sin and\nfall; the angel, that gave the first intimation hereof, when he tells\nthe blessed virgin, his mother, that _the Holy Ghost should come upon\nher, that the power of the highest should over-shadow her_, he says,\n_Therefore that Holy Thing, that shall be born of thee, shall be called,\nthe Son of God_; thereby implies, that, in his first formation, he was\nholy, and consequently had no concern in the guilt of Adam\u2019s sin,\nbecause of the manner of his formation, or conception; and this is\ncertainly a better way to account for his being sinless, than to\npretend, as the Papists do, that his mother was sinless; which will do\nno service to their cause, unless they could ascend in a line to our\nfirst parents, and so prove, that all our Saviour\u2019s progenitors were\nimmaculate, as well as the virgin; which is more than they pretend to\ndo.\n\nIII. It is farther observed, in this answer, that mankind sinned in and\nfell with Adam in his _first transgression_, and therefore they had no\nconcern in those sins, which he committed afterwards. This appears from\nhence, that Adam, as soon as he sinned, lost the honour and prerogative,\nthat was conferred upon him, of being the federal head of his posterity,\nthough he was their natural head, or common father; for the covenant\nbeing broken, all the evils, that we were liable to, arising from\nthence, were devolved upon us, and none of the blessings, contained\ntherein, could be conveyed to us that way, since it was impossible for\nhim, after his fall, to perform sinless obedience, which was the\ncondition of the life promised therein. This doth not arise so much from\nthe nature of the covenant, as from the change that there was in man,\nwith whom it was made. The law, or covenant, would have given life, if\nman could have yielded perfect obedience; but since his fall rendered\nthat impossible, though the obligation thereof, as a law, distinct from\na covenant, and the curse, arising from the sanction thereof, remains\nstill in force against fallen man; yet, as a covenant, in which life was\npromised, it was, from that time, abrogated; and therefore the apostle\nspeaks of it, as being _weak through the flesh_, Rom. viii. 3. that is,\nby reason of Adam\u2019s transgression, and consequently he ceased, from that\ntime, to be the federal head, or means of conveying life to his\nposterity; therefore those sins that he committed afterwards, were no\nmore imputed to them, to inhance their condemnation, than his\nrepentance, or good works, were imputed for their justification.\n\nIV. Having considered the first transgression of Adam, as imputed to all\nthose who descended from him by ordinary generation, we shall proceed to\nconsider, how this doctrine is opposed, by those who are in the contrary\nway of thinking.\n\n_Object. 1._ It is objected, that what is done by one man cannot be\nimputed to another; for this is contrary to the divine perfections, to\nthe law of nature, and the express words of scripture. It is true, that\nwhich is done by us, in our own persons, may be imputed to us, whether\nit be good or evil. Thus it is said, that Phinehas\u2019s _zeal in executing\njudgment, by which means the plague was stayed, was counted to him for\nrighteousness_, Psal. cvi. 30, 31. so was Abraham\u2019s _faith_, Rom. iv. 9,\n23. Accordingly God approved of these their respective good actions, as\nwhat denominated them righteous persons, and placed them to their\naccount, as bestowing on them some rewards accordingly; so, on the other\nhand, a man\u2019s own sin may be imputed to him, and he may be dealt with as\nan offender: But to impute the sin committed by one person to another,\nis to suppose that he has committed that sin which was really committed\nby another; in which case, the Judge of all the earth would not do\nright.\n\n_Answ._ When we speak of persons being punished for a crime committed by\nanother, as being imputed to them, we understand the word _imputation_\nin a forensick sense, and therefore we do not suppose that here is a\nwrong judgment passed on persons or things, as though the crime were\nreckoned to have been committed by them; accordingly we do not say, that\nwe committed that sin, which was more immediately committed by Adam. In\nhim it was an actual sin; it is ours, as imputed to us, or as we are\npunished for it, according to the demerit of the offence, and the tenor\nof the covenant, in which we were included.\n\nMoreover, it is not contrary to the law of nature, or nations, for the\niniquity of some public persons to be punished in many others, so that\nwhole cities and nations have suffered on their account; and as for\nscripture-instances hereof, we often read of whole families and nations,\nsuffering for the crimes of those, who had been public persons, and\nexemplary in sinning. Thus Achan coveted the wedge of gold, and, for\nthis, he suffered not alone; but his _sons and daughters were stoned,\nand burned with fire_, together with himself, Joshua vii. 24, 25. though\nwe do not expressly read, that they were confederates with him in the\ncrime. And as for the Amalekites, who, without provocation, came out\nagainst Israel in the wilderness, God threatens them, that he would have\n_war with them for this, from generation to generation_, Exod. xvii. 16.\nand in pursuance of this threatening, God, imputing the crime of their\nforefathers to their posterity, some hundreds of years after, ordered\n_Saul to go and utterly destroy them, by slaying both man and woman,\ninfant and suckling_, 1 Sam. xv. 2, 3. And the sin of Jeroboam was\npunished in his posterity, according to the threatening denounced, 1\nKings xiv. 10, 11. as was also the sin of Ahab, 1 Kings xxi. 21, 22. And\nthe church acknowledges, that it was a righteous dispensation of\nprovidence for God to bring upon Judah those miseries, which immediately\npreceded, and followed their being carried captive, when they say, _Our\nfathers have sinned, and are not; and we have borne their iniquity_,\nLam. v. 7. and our Saviour speaks to the same purpose, when he tells the\nJews, _That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the\nearth, from the blood of righteous Abel, unto the blood of Zacharias,\nson of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar_, Matth.\nxxiii. 35. These instances, and others of the like nature, prove that it\nis no unheard of thing, for one man to suffer for a crime committed by\nanother[64].\n\nBut I am sensible the principal thing intended in the objection, when\nthis is supposed to be contrary to scripture, is, that it contradicts\nthe sense of what the prophet says, when he tells the people, that _they\nshould not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel, The\nfathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children\u2019s teeth are set on\nedge_; for _the soul that sinneth shall die_, Ezek. xviii. 2-4. the\nmeaning of which scripture is, that if they were humble and penitent,\nand did not commit those crimes that their fathers had done, they should\nnot be punished for them, which was a special act of favour, that God\nwould grant them on this supposition; and it is as much as to say, that\nhe would not impute their father\u2019s sins to them, or suffer them to be\ncarried captive, merely because their fathers had deserved this\ndesolating judgment. But this does not, in all respects, agree with the\ninstance before us; for we are considering Adam as the federal head of\nhis posterity, and so their fathers were not to be considered in this,\nand such like scriptures. Moreover, the objectors will hardly deny, that\nnatural death, and the many evils of this life, are a punishment, in\nsome respects, for the sin of our first parents. Therefore the question\nis not, whether some degree of punishment may ensue hereupon? but,\nwhether the greatest degree of the punishment of sin in hell, can be\nsaid to be the consequence hereof? But this we shall be led more\nparticularly to consider, under a following answer[65].\n\n_Object. 2._ It is farther objected, that it is not agreeable to the\ndivine perfections, for God to appoint Adam to be the head and\nrepresentative of all his posterity; so that they must stand, or fall,\nwith respect to their spiritual and eternal concerns in him, inasmuch as\nthis was not done by their own choice and consent, which they were not\ncapable of giving, since they were not existent. The case say they, is\nthe same, as though a king should appoint a representative body of men,\nand give them a power to enact laws, whereby his subjects should be\ndispossessed of their estates and properties, which no one can suppose\nto be just; whereas if they had chosen them themselves, they would have\nno reason to complain of any injustice that was done them, inasmuch as\nthe laws, made by their representatives, are, in effect, their own laws.\nTherefore, to apply this to the case before us, had all mankind chose\nAdam to be their representative, or consented to stand or fall in him,\nthere would have been no reason to complain of the dispensation of God\u2019s\nprovidence, relating hereunto: but, inasmuch as it was otherwise, it\ndoes not seem agreeable to the justice of God, to constitute him the\nhead and representative of all his posterity: so that, by his fall, they\nshould be involved in ruin, and eternal perdition.\n\n_Answ._ There are various methods taken to answer this objection.\n\n1. Some say little more to it than this: That if Adam had retained his\nintegrity, we should have accepted of, and rejoiced in that life, which\nhe would have procured by his standing; there would then have been no\ncomplaint, or finding fault, with the divine dispensation, as though it\nhad been unjust; therefore, since he fell, and brought death into the\nworld, it is reasonable that we should submit, and acknowledge, that all\nthe ways of God are equal. But, though we must all allow that submission\nto the will of God, in whatever he does, is the creatures duty, yet I\ncannot think this a sufficient answer to the objection, and therefore\nwould not lay much stress upon it, but proceed to consider what may be\nfarther said in answer to it.\n\n2. Others say, that, since Adam was the common father, and consequently\nthe most honourable of mankind, (our Saviour only excepted, whom he did\nnot represent) therefore it was fit that he should have this honour\nconferred upon him; so that, had all his posterity been existent, and\nthe choice of a representative been wholly referred to them, the law of\nnature would have directed to, and pointed out the man, who ought, in\nthis respect, to have the preference to all others. This answer bids\nfairer, I confess to remove the difficulty than the other, especially if\nit be added, that God might have given Adam some advantages of nature,\nabove the rest of mankind, besides that relative one, arising from his\nbeing their common father; and therefore, that it would have been their\ninterest, as well as their duty, to have chosen him, as being best\nqualified to perform the work that was devolved upon him.\n\n3. But, since this will not wholly remove the difficulty, it is farther\nalleged, that God chose him, and therefore we ought to acquiesce in his\nchoice; and, indeed, had all mankind been then existent, supposing them\nto be in a state of perfect holiness (and we must not suppose the\ncontrary) then they would have acknowledged the equity of this divine\ndispensation, otherwise they would have actually sinned, and fallen, in\nrejecting and complaining of the will of God. But this will not satisfy\nthose who advance the contrary scheme of doctrine, and deny the\nimputation of Adam\u2019s sin to his posterity, who still complain of it, as\na very severe dispensation, and conclude, that the sovereignty of God is\npleaded for against his other perfections; therefore something farther\nmust be added, in answer to the objection.\n\nWe freely allow, that it is not equitable (to use the similitude taken\nfrom human forms of government) for a king to appoint a representative,\nwho shall have a power committed to him, to take away the properties, or\nestates of his subjects: but this does not, in many respects, agree with\nthe matter under our present consideration: nevertheless, if we were to\nsuppose, that these subjects had nothing which they could call their\nown, separate from the will of the prince, and their properties and\nestates were not only defended, but given by him, and that upon this\ntenure, that he reserved to himself a right to dispossess them of them\nat his pleasure; in this case, he might, without any injustice done\nthem, appoint a representative, by whose conduct they might be\nforfeited, or retained; and this agrees with our present argument.\nAccordingly let it be considered, that there were some things which Adam\nwas possessed of in his state of innocency, and others which he was\ngiven to expect, had he stood, which he had no natural right to,\nseparate from the divine will; therefore it follows, from hence, that\nGod might, without doing his posterity any injustice, repose this in the\nhands of a mutable creature, so that it should be retained or lost for\nthem, according as he stood or fell. And this will appear less\nexceptionable, when we consider the nature of that guilt, which all\nmankind were brought under, by Adam\u2019s sin, and the loss of original\nrighteousness, as the consequence of his fall; which they, who maintain\nthe other side of the question, generally represent, in such a way, as\nthough we supposed that there were no difference between it, and the\nguilt contracted, together with the punishment ensuing on actual sins,\nhow great soever they are. But this will be more particularly considered\nunder a following answer,[66] in which we shall endeavour to take a just\nestimate of the difference between the guilt of Adam\u2019s sin, imputed to\nus, and that of actual sins committed by us.\n\nFootnote 56:\n\n If Adam represented Eve (his rib) in the covenant, she did not fall\n till he fell.\n\nFootnote 57:\n\n _The compilers of the LXX. seem to have understood the words in this\n sense, when then render the text in_ Gen. ii. 17. \u03b7 \u03b4 \u03b1\u03bd \u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c6\u03b1\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\n \u03b1\u03c0 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03c4\u03c9 \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5.\n\nFootnote 58:\n\n \u03a4\u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, _the Type_.\n\nFootnote 59:\n\n \u0395\u03c6\u1fbd \u03c9.\n\nFootnote 60:\n\n _The words are_, \u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9 \u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1. _The word Judgment, though not in the original, is very\n justly supplied in our translation, from verse 16. or else, as the\n learned Grotius observes, the word \u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf might have been supplied;\n and so the meaning is_, Res processit in condemnationem. _And J.\n Capellus gives a very good sense of the text, when he compares Adam as\n the head, who brought death into the world, with Christ by whom life\n is obtained. His words are these_: Quemadmodum omnes homines, qui\n condemnantur, reatum suum contraxerant, ab una unius hominis offensa;\n sic & quotquot vivificantur, absolutionem suam obtinuerunt ab una\n unius hominis obedientia.\n\nFootnote 61:\n\n _The word_ \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1 _is used in scripture, in a forensic sense, in\n those places of the New Testament, where it is found: Thus ver. 16. of\n this chapter, and chap. viii. 1. And accordingly it signifies a\n judgment unto condemnation; as also do those words, the sense whereof\n has an affinity to it, in Rom. viii. 34._ \u03c4\u03b9\u03c2 \u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd; _and also_\n \u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, _as in Acts xvi. 37. and_ chap. xxii. 25. _So that,\n according to the construction of the word, though_ \u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1 _signifies_\n judicium _in general_, \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03b1 signifies judicium adversus aliquem,\n _or_ condemnatio.\n\nFootnote 62:\n\n That mankind are born and live in sin, maybe collected from various\n sources of argument; by matter of fact, none are found free from, who\n are capable of actual guilt, by the evils and death which a just God\n would not otherwise inflict; by the ideas of the ancients who speak of\n a degeneration from a golden, to an iron age, by the general practice\n of offering sacrifice, which is an acknowment of guilt, by the\n testimony of the heathens, that evil example has a preponderating\n influence over good, by the historical account of the fall of man in\n the scriptures, by their numerous testimonies that none are righteous\n before God or can be justified by their obedience to his laws, by the\n confessions of the saints, by the necessity of repentance in all, by\n the propriety of prayer for the pardon of sin, by Christ\u2019s example of\n daily prayer which contains such a petition, by the necessity of faith\n that we may please God, by man\u2019s unwillingness to be reconciled to\n God, and rejection of all the spiritual good things offered, and\n contempt of divine threatnings; and above all other proofs, by the\n coming and suffering of Christ.\n\nFootnote 63:\n\n The covenant of grace was from eternity, and implied his innocence.\n\nFootnote 64:\n\n _This is not only agreeable to many instances contained in scripture,\n but it has been acknowledged to be just by the very heathen, as\n agreeable to the law of nature and nations. Thus one says: Sometimes a\n whole city is punished for the wickedness of one man: Thus Hesiod,_\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03be\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b1 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9; _and Horace says,_\n Quicquid delirant reges, plectuntur Achivi: _And one observes, that it\n was the custom of several cities of Greece, to inflict the same\n punishment on the children of tyrants, as their fathers had done on\n others:_ In Gr\u00e6cis civitatibus liberi tyrannorum suppressis illis,\n eodem supplicio afficiuntur. _Vid. Cicer. Epist. ad Brut. XV. & Q.\n Curt. Lib. VI. speaks of a law observed among the Macedonians; in\n which, traiterous conspiracies against the life of the prince were\n punished, not only in the traitors themselves, but in their near\n relations,_ Qui regi infidiati essent, illi cum cognatis & propinquis\n suis morte afficerentur.\n\nFootnote 65:\n\n _See Quest._ xxvii.\n\nFootnote 66:\n\n _See Quest._ xxvii.\n\n\n\n\n Quest. XXIII., XXIV., XXV., XXVI.\n\n\n QUEST. XXIII. _Into what estate did the fall bring mankind?_\n\n ANSW. The fall brought mankind into an estate of sin and misery.\n\n QUEST. XXIV. _What is sin?_\n\n ANSW. Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of any\n law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature.\n\n QUEST. XXV. _Wherein consisteth the sinfulness of that estate\n whereinto man fell?_\n\n ANSW. The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consisteth\n in the guilt of Adam\u2019s first sin, the want of that righteousness\n wherein he was created; and the corruption of his nature, whereby he\n is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is\n spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that\n continually, which is commonly called, Original sin, and from which\n do proceed all actual transgressions.\n\n QUEST. XXVI. _How is original sin conveyed from our first parents\n unto their posterity?_\n\n ANSW. Original sin is conveyed from our first parents unto their\n posterity by natural generation, so as all that proceed from them,\n in that way, are conceived and born in sin.\n\nHaving considered the fall of our first parents, and all mankind being\nso far concerned therein, as that their sin is imputed to them; we are\nnow led to speak concerning that sin and misery which ensues hereupon.\nAnd,\n\nI. This is not barely called a single act of sin, or one particular\ninstance of misery, but a state of sin and misery. Man\u2019s being brought\ninto a state of sin, is sometimes called sin\u2019s reigning, or having\ndominion over him; and his being brought into a state of misery, is\ncalled the reign, or dominion of death; so that as, by various steps, we\nproceed from one degree of sin unto another, our condemnation is\ngradually enhanced thereby. This is the subject matter of the first of\nthese answers.\n\nII. We have a brief definition of sin, in which there is something\nsupposed, namely, that there was a law given, and promulgated, as a rule\nof obedience, to the reasonable creature, without which there could be\nno sin committed, or guilt contracted; as the apostle saith, _Where no\nlaw is, there is no transgression_, Rom. iv. 15. or, _Sin is not\nimputed, where there is no law_, chap. v. 13.\n\nAnd inasmuch as it is observed, that the subjects, bound by this law,\nare reasonable creatures; this gives us to understand, that though other\ncreatures be the effect of God\u2019s power, and the objects of his\nprovidence, yet they are not the subjects of moral government. They\ncannot therefore be under a law, inasmuch as they are not capable of\nunderstanding their relation to God, as Sovereign, or their obligation\nto obey him, or the meaning of a law, which is the rule thereof.\nMoreover, we have in this answer, an account of the formal nature of\nsin.\n\n1. It is considered, either in its negative, or rather privative idea,\nas containing in it a defect, or want of conformity to the law, a\nprivation of that rectitude of nature, or righteousness that man had at\nfirst, or our not performing that which we are bound, by the law of God,\nto do; and those particular instances of sin, included herein, are\ncalled sins of omission.\n\n2. It is described by its positive idea, and so it is called, a\ntransgression of the law, or doing that which is forbidden by it. Thus\nit is called, by the apostle, _The transgression of the law_, 1 John\niii. 4. This we shall not insist on at present, inasmuch as we shall\nhave occasion to enlarge on this head, when we consider the sins\nforbidden, under each of the ten commandments, and the various\naggravations thereof.[67]\n\nIII. We are, in the next answer, led to consider the sinfulness of all\nmankind, as fallen in Adam, or original sin, as derived to, and\ndiscovered in us; and this consists more especially in our being guilty\nof Adam\u2019s first sin, our wanting that righteousness which he was\npossessed of; and also in the corruption of nature, from whence all\nactual transgressions proceed.\n\n1. We shall enquire what we are to understand by the guilt of Adam\u2019s\nfirst sin. Having before shewn that his disobedience is imputed to his\nposterity, that which is the result thereof, is, that all the world\nbecomes guilty before God: guilt is an obligation, or liableness to\nsuffer punishment for an offence committed, in proportion to the\naggravations thereof. Now, since this guilt was not contracted by us,\nbut imputed to us, we must consider it as the same, in all; or not\nadmitting of any degrees; nevertheless, there is a very great difference\nbetween that guilt which is the result of sin imputed to, and that which\narises from sin\u2019s being committed by us. They, who do not put a just\ndifference between these two, give occasion to many prejudices against\nthis doctrine, and do not sufficiently vindicate the perfections of God,\nin his judiciary proceedings in punishing one or the other of them. That\nwe may avoid this inconvenience, let it be considered, that original and\nactual sins differ more especially in two respects.\n\n(1.) The sin of our first parents, how heinous soever it was in them, as\nbeing an actual transgression, attended with the highest aggravations,\nyet it cannot be said to be our actual sin, or committed by an act of\nour will; therefore, though the imputation thereof to us, as has been\nbefore proved, is righteous, yet it has not those circumstances\nattending it, as though it had been committed by us. Therefore,\n\n(2.) The guilt thereof, or the punishment due to it, cannot be so great\nas the guilt we contract, or the punishment we are liable to, for actual\nsins, which are committed with the approbation and consent of the will,\nand as they are against some degree of light and convictions of\nconscience, and manifold engagements to the contrary: but this does not\nproperly belong to Adam\u2019s sin, as imputed to us; nor is the punishment\ndue to it the same, as though it had been committed by us in our own\npersons.\n\nBut, that we may not be misunderstood, let it be considered, that we are\nnot speaking of the corruption of nature inherent in us. We do not deny,\nbut that the fountain that sends forth all actual sins, or that sin\nreigning in the heart, is, in various respects, more aggravated, than\nmany others that are committed, which we call actual transgressions, as\nthe corrupt fountain is worse than the streams, or the root than the\nbranch, or the cause than the effect. But when we consider, as at\npresent we do Adam\u2019s sin only, as imputed, and as being antecedent to\nthat corruption of nature, which is the immediate cause of sinful\nactions; or when we distinguish between original sin, as imputed and\ninherent, we only understand, by the former, that it cannot expose those\nwho never committed any actual sins, to so great a degree of guilt and\npunishment, as the sins committed by them are said to expose them to.\n\nAnd let it be farther observed, that we do not say that there is no\npunishment due to original sin, as imputed to us; for that would be to\nsuppose that there is no guilt attending it, which is contrary to what\nwe have already proved; but all our design, at present, is, to put a\njust difference between Adam\u2019s sin, imputed to us, and those that are\ncommitted by us. And, indeed, if what we have said under this head, be\nnot true, the state of infants, dying in infancy, under the guilt of\nAdam\u2019s sin, must be equally deplorable with that of the rest of mankind;\ntherefore, when I find some expressing themselves to this purpose, I\ncannot wonder that others, who deny this doctrine are offended at it. It\nis one thing to say, that they are exposed to no punishment at all,\nwhich none, that observe the miseries that we are liable to, from our\nfirst appearance in the world, to our leaving it, whether sooner or\nlater, can well deny; and another thing to say, that they are exposed to\nthe same punishment for it, as though they had actually committed it;\nthe former we allow; the latter we must take leave to deny lest we\nshould give occasion to any to think that the Judge of all does any\nthing, which carries in it the least appearance of severity, and\ninjustice. Thus concerning the guilt of Adam\u2019s first sin, imputed to us;\nwhich leads us to consider the effects thereof. Accordingly,\n\n2. Man is said to want that righteousness which he had at first, which\nis generally called, original righteousness. This is styled, the\nprivative part of original sin, as the corruption of the human nature,\nand its propensity to all sin, is the positive part thereof. In\nconsidering the former of these, or man\u2019s want of original\nrighteousness, we may observe,\n\n(1.) That man has not wholly lost God\u2019s natural image, which he was\npossessed of, as an intelligent creature, consisting in his being\nendowed as such with an understanding, capable of some degree of the\nknowledge of himself and divine things; and a will, in many respects,\nfree, _viz._ as to what concerns natural things, or some external\nbranches of religion, or things materially good, and in his having\nexecutive powers, to act agreeably thereunto; though these are miserably\ndefaced, and come far short of that perfection, which he had in the\nstate in which he was first created. Some have compared this to an old\ndecayed building, which has, by the ruins of time, lost its strength and\nbeauty, though it retains something of the shape and resemblance of what\nit was before. Thus the powers and faculties of the soul are weakened,\nbut not wholly lost, by the fall. They are like the fruits of the earth,\nwhich are shrivelled and withered in winter, and look as though they are\ndead; or like a man, who has out-lived himself, and has lost the\nvivacity and sprightliness of his parts, as well as the beauty of his\nbody, which he formerly had.\n\n(2.) Our ability to yield acceptable obedience to God, much more perfect\nobedience, is wholly lost, as being destitute of a principle of\nspiritual life and grace, which must, if ever we have it, be implanted\nin regeneration; so that every one may say with the apostle, _In me_\n(_that is, in my flesh_,) _dwelleth no good thing_, Rom. vii. 18.\n\n(3.) We are destitute of a right to the heavenly blessedness, and all\nthose privileges, that were promised upon condition of our first parents\nperforming perfect obedience, according to the tenor of the covenant\nmade with them in their state of innocency.\n\nThis want of original righteousness is the immediate consequence of\nAdam\u2019s first sin. By original righteousness we understand, either that\nfreedom from guilt, which man had before he sinned, which exempted him\nfrom any liableness to condemnation, and afforded him a plea before God\nfor his retaining the blessings he was possessed of; and, had he\npersisted longer in his integrity, it would have given him a right to a\ngreater degree of happiness: His perfect obedience was his\nrighteousness, in a forensick sense; and the failure thereof, in our\nfirst parents, rendered both them and us destitute of it. But, since\nthis is the same with what is expressed in the foregoing words, wherein\nwe are denominated guilty of Adam\u2019s first sin, we must consider\nsomething else, as intended in this expression, when we are said to want\nthat righteousness wherein he was created.\n\nWe have before observed, that, by the fall of our first parents, the\nimage of God in man was defaced: But now, we are to speak of his\nsupernatural image, as what was wholly lost, and therefore all mankind\nare, by nature, destitute of a principle of grace; upon which account it\nmay be truly said, as the apostle does, _There is none righteous; no,\nnot one_, Rom. iii. 10. and elsewhere man is called, _A transgressor\nfrom the womb_, Isa. xlviii. 8. and, by nature, not only _a child of\nwrath_, but _dead in trespasses and sins_, Eph. ii. 1. and therefore it\nis necessary that we be created again to good works, or that a new\nprinciple of grace be implanted in regeneration, without which there is\nno salvation. Our being destitute of this supernatural principle of\ngrace is distinguished from that propensity to sin, or corruption of\nnature, which is spoken of in the following words of this answer; and\ntherefore, considering it as thus distinguished, and as called, by some,\nthe _privative_ part of original sin; we are led to speak of man in his\ndestitute state, deprived of that which was his glory, and tended to his\ndefence against the assaults of temptation; and of those actual\ntransgressions which are the consequence thereof. This excellent\nendowment man is said to have lost.\n\nSome divines express themselves with a degree of caution, when treating\non this subject; and therefore, though they allow that man has lost this\nrighteousness, yet they will hardly own that God took it away, though it\nwere by a judicial act, as supposing that this would argue him to be the\nauthor of sin; and I would not blame the least degree of concern\nexpressed to fence against such a consequence, did it really ensue on\nour asserting it; yet I cannot but conclude, that the holiness of God\nmay be vindicated, though we should assert, that he deprived him of this\nrighteousness, as a punishment of his sin, or denied him that power to\nperform perfect obedience, which he conferred on him at first; for there\nis a vast difference between God\u2019s restoring to him his lost power, to\nperform that which is truly and supernaturally good in all its\ncircumstances; and the infusing habits of sin into his nature: This, we\nacknowledge, he could not do, consistently with his holiness, and shall\nmake it farther appear, under a following head. But the other he might\ndo, that is, leave man destitute of a power to walk before him in\nholiness and righteousness; for, if God had been obliged to have given\nhim this power, then his bestowing it on fallen man, would be rather a\ndebt than a grace, which is contrary to the whole tenor of the gospel.\nBut this leads us to consider the _positive_ part of original sin;\ntherefore,\n\n3. Man\u2019s sinfulness, as fallen, consists in the corruption of his\nnature, or a propensity and inclination to all evil, which, as it is\nobserved, is commonly called, _original sin_, that is, original sin\ninherent, as distinguished from it, as imputed to us, which has been\nalready considered. That the nature of man is vitiated, corrupted, and\nprone to all that is bad, is taken for granted by all; and, indeed, he\nthat denies it, must either be very much unacquainted with himself, or\nhardly retain the common notices which we have of moral good and evil.\nThis is frequently represented, in scripture, as a plague, defilement,\nor deadly evil, with which his heart is affected; upon which account it\nis said, that _it is deceitful above all things, and desperately\nwicked_, Jer. xvii. 9. that _out of it proceed evil thoughts_, and all\nother abominations of the most heinous nature, Matth. xv. 19. unless\nprevented by the grace of God.\n\nThis propensity of nature to sin discovers itself in the first dawn of\nour reason; so that we no sooner appear to be men, but we give ground to\nconclude that we are sinners. Accordingly it is said, _The imagination\nof man\u2019s heart is only evil_, and that _from his youth_,[68] Gen. vi. 5.\ncompared with chap. viii. 21. and he is represented as _estranged from\nthe womb, going astray as soon as he is born, speaking lyes_, Psal.\nlvii. 3. which is, notwithstanding, to be understood with this\nlimitation, that we are prone to sin, as soon as we have any\ndispositions, or inclinations, to any thing; for it cannot be supposed\nthat man is disposed to commit actual sin before he is capable of\nacting. Some, indeed, have attempted to prove that the soul of a child\nsins as soon as it is united to the body in the womb, and have carried\nthis indefensible conjecture so far, as that they have maintained, that\nactual sin is committed in the womb. But this is not only destitute of\nall manner of proof, but it seems so very absurd, that, as few will be\nconvinced by it, so it needs no confutation.\n\nAs for this propensity to sin, (whenever it may be said to take place)\nit is certain, that it is not equal in all; and in this it differs from\nAdam\u2019s guilt, as imputed to us, and from our want of original\nrighteousness, as the immediate consequence thereof; for these corrupt\ninclinations appear, from universal experience, as well as the\nconcurrent testimony of scripture, to be of an increasing nature; so\nthat some are more obstinate and hardened in sin than others; and the\nhabits thereof, in many, are compared to the tincture of the\n_Ethiopian_, or the _leopard\u2019s spots_, Jer. xiii. 23. which no human art\ncan take away. We are, indeed, naturally prone to sin at first; but\nafterwards the leprosy spreads, and the propensity, or inclination to\nit, increases by repeated acts, or a course of sin. The Psalmist takes\nnotice of this, in a beautiful climax, or gradation; _They know not,\nneither will they understand, they walk in darkness_, Psal. lxxxii. 5.\n\nWe shall now take occasion to speak something concerning the rise or\norigin hereof. This is a difficulty which many have attempted to account\nfor and explain, though with as little success as any thing that comes\nwithin the compass of our enquiries. Some ancient heretics[69] have\nthought, that because it could not be from God, who is the author of\nnothing but what is good, that therefore there are two first causes; one\nof all good, which is God, and the other of all evil. But this is\ndeservedly exploded, as a most dangerous and absurd notion.\n\nOthers seem to assert, that God is the author of it; and, that they may\nexculpate themselves from making him the author of sin, which is the\nvilest reproach that can be cast upon him, they add, that he does this\nin a judicial way, as a punishment for the sin of our first parents, and\nthat it is no reflection on him to suppose, that, as a Judge, he may put\nthis propensity to sin into our nature; so that it is, as it were,\nconcreate with the soul, or derived to us, at the same time that it is\nformed in, and united to the body: But we cannot, by any means, conclude\nGod to be the author hereof, though it be as a Judge; for that would be\nto suppose his vindictive justice inconsistent with the spotless purity\nof his nature. We read, indeed, of God\u2019s _giving men up to their own\nhearts\u2019 lusts_, Psal. lxxxi. 11, 12. as a punishment for other sins; but\nnever of his producing in them an inclination to sin, though it be under\nthe notion of a punishment: But this having been proved and illustrated,\nunder a foregoing answer, when speaking concerning the providence of\nGod, as conversant about those actions, to which sin is annexed, in a\njudicial way, we shall pass it over in this place[70].\n\nThe Pelagians, and, after them, the Papists, and some among the\nRemonstrants, being sensible, that this propensity of nature to sin\ncannot be denied, have taken such a method to account for it, as makes\nit a very innocent and harmless thing; and, that it may appear agreeable\nto the notion which they maintain of the innocency of man by nature,\nthey suppose that the first motions, or inclinations of the soul to sin,\nor, to use their own expression, the first acts of concupiscence are not\nsinful; and, to support this opinion, they maintain, that nothing can be\ndeemed a sin, but what is committed with the full bent of the will; and\ntherefore when an unlawful object presents itself, how much soever the\nmind may be pleased with it, yet there is no sin till there is an actual\ncompliance with it; and, for this, they bring that scripture, _When lust\nhas conceived, it bringeth forth sin_, James i. 15. that is, the second\nact of concupiscence, or the compliance with the first suggestions to\nsin, are only denominated sin; and, as a consequence from this\nsupposition, they pretend that these first acts of concupiscence were\nnot inconsistent with a state of innocency; so that when _Eve saw that\nthe tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a\ntree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and\ndid eat_, Gen. iii. 6. She did not sin till she took of the fruit\nthereof, and did eat; and, as a farther consequence deduced from this\nsupposition, they conclude, that that original righteousness, which our\nfirst parents had, did not consist so much in a perfect freedom from all\nsuggestions to sin, but it was rather a bridle to restrain them from\ncompliance therewith, which, by not making a right use of, they complied\nwith the motions of concupiscence, and so sinned. And, according to this\nscheme, that propensity of nature to sin, which we have in our\nchildhood, is an harmless, and innocent thing, and therefore we may\nsuppose it to be from God, without concluding him to be the author of\nsin. But this is a vile and groundless notion, and such as savours more\nof Antinomianism, than many doctrines that are so called; and, indeed,\nit is to call that no sin, which is, as it were, the root and spring of\nall sin, and to make God the author and approver of that, which he\ncannot but look on with the utmost detestation, as being contrary to the\nholiness of his nature; to which nothing farther need be said, since the\nnotion carries the black marks of its own infamy in itself.\n\nThere are others who oppose the doctrine of original sin, and pretend to\naccount for the corruption of nature, by supposing that all men sinned\nfor themselves; which is nothing else but reviving an old opinion taken\nfrom the schools of Plato and Pythagoras, namely, that God created the\nsouls of all men at first, and before they were united to their bodies,\nat least those that now they have, sinned; and, as a punishment of their\ncrime in that state, they were not only condemned to their respective\nbodies, but to suffer all the miseries which they are exposed to\ntherein; so that the sin, which they committed in these bodies, is\nnothing else but the propagation of that, which had its first rise in\nthe acts of the understanding and will, when they first fell into a\nstate of sin. This is so chimerical an opinion, that I would not have\nmentioned it, had it not been maintained by some, as an expedient, to\naccount for the corruption of nature, by those who deny original sin,\nand affirmed with that assurance, as though it were founded in\nscripture; whereas I cannot think it has the least countenance from it.\nThey first take it for granted without sufficient ground that those\nscriptures, that speak of the pre-existence of Christ in his divine\nnature, are to be understood concerning the pre-existence of his soul;\nand from thence they infer, that it is reasonable to suppose, that the\nsouls of other men pre-existed likewise. And they also strain the sense\nof two or three other scriptures to prove it; as when it is said, that,\nwhen God had _laid the foundation of the earth, the morning stars sang\ntogether, and all the sons of God shouted for joy_, Job xxxviii. 7.\nwhere, by the _morning stars_, they understand, as others do, the\n_angels_; and, by the _sons of God_, they suppose, is meant the souls of\nmen, that were then created, and untainted with sin, and, to give\nfarther countenance to this, they explain what is said in a following\nverse, ver. 12. agreeably thereunto, where, when God had continued the\naccount which he gives of his having created the world, he says,\n_Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born, or because the number of\nthy days is great_; they render the words, _Knowest thou that thou wast\nthen born, and that the number of thy days are many_, or they depend\nupon the translation, which the LXX give of the text, _I know that thou\nwast then born, for the number of thy days is many_, that is, that thou\nwast then existent; for though thou knowest not what thou didst, from\nthat time, till thou camest into the world, yet the number of thy days\nis great, that is, thou hadst an existence many ages before. How easy a\nmatter it is for persons to strain the sense of some words of scripture,\nto serve a purpose, contrary to the general scope and design thereof, if\nthey attempt to give countenance thereby to any doctrine of their own\ninvention.\n\nAs for those scriptures, which they bring to prove that the Jews were of\nthis opinion, I will not deny the inference from thence, that some of\nthem were, as appears from the report that the disciples gave to our\nSaviour, when he asked them, _Whom do men say that I am?_ They replied,\n_Some say that thou art John the Baptist, some Elias, and others\nJeremias, or one of the prophets_, Matth. xvi. 13, 14. that is, they\njudged, according to the Pythagorean hypothesis, that the soul of\n_Jeremias_, or _one of the prophets_, dwelt in that body, which he had,\nand therefore that he was one of them. And there is another scripture,\nin which our Saviour\u2019s disciples, speaking concerning the blind man,\nasked him, _Did this man sin, or his parents, that he was born blind?_\nJohn ix. 2. as if he should say: Was it for some sin that this man\u2019s\nsoul committed, before it entered into the body, to which it is united?\nAnd was his being born blind a punishment thereof? I say, I will not\ndeny, but that some of the Jews, from hence, may be supposed to have\ngiven into this fabulous notion, agreeably to the sentiments of the\nphilosophy, which they had been conversant in. But I will not allow that\nour Saviour\u2019s not confuting this absurd opinion, is an intimation; (as\nthe defenders thereof generally conclude it to be) that he reckoned it\njust; but I rather think, that he passed it over, as a vulgar error, not\nworthy of his confutation. And as for that passage, which they quote,\nfor this purpose, out of the apocryphal book of _Wisdom_, which is no\nproof of this matter from Scripture, when one is represented, as saying\nto this effect, that _because he was good, he came into a body\nundefiled_; this only proves, that this was the opinion of some of that\ntrifling generation of men. And, when they speak of it, as what, has\nbeen maintained by some of the Fathers, who received the notion from the\nphilosophy above-mentioned, this is also as little to the purpose; and,\nindeed, all the other arguments that they bring, amount to nothing else\nbut this; that, if the scripture had not given us ground to establish\nthe contrary doctrine, there might have been, at least, a possibility of\nthe truth of this, but to lay this as a foundation, on which they assert\nthe truth thereof, and that with the design above-mentioned, this is\nnothing else, but for men to substitute their own fancies, without\nsufficient ground, as matters of faith, and build doctrines upon them,\nas though they were contained in scripture. I pass by other\nimprovements, which they make on this fabulous notion, which still\nappear to be more romantic.[71]\n\nThere is another attempt to account for the origin of moral evil,\nwithout inferring God to be the author of it, which has formerly been\nadvanced by those who deny the imputation of Adam\u2019s sin; and these\nsuppose that the soul is rendered polluted with sin, by reason of its\ntraduction, or propagation, from the soul of the immediate parent; so\nthat, in like manner, as the body is subject to hereditary diseases, the\nsoul is defiled with sin, as both one and the other are the consequence\nof their formation, according to the course of nature, in the likeness\nof those, from whom they immediately derive their respective beings; and\nthey suppose that a similitude of passions, and natural dispositions in\nparents and children, is an argument to evince the truth hereof.\n\nBut this appears so contrary to the light of nature, and all the\nprinciples of philosophy, to suppose, that one spirit can produce\nanother, in a natural way, and so repugnant to the ideas which we have\nof spirits, as simple beings, or not compounded of parts, as bodies are,\nthat it seems almost to be universally exploded, as being destitute of\nany tolerable argument to support it, though it was formerly embraced by\nsome of the Fathers.[72] And they, who pretend to account for it, by the\nsimilitude of one candle\u2019s lighting another, and yet the flame remaining\nthe same as it was before, have only made use of an unhappy method of\nillustration, which comes far short of a conclusive argument to their\npurpose. And as for the likeness of natural dispositions in children to\ntheir parents, that does not, in the least prove it; since this arises\nvery much from the temperament of the body, or from the prejudices of\neducation. Therefore this method to account for the origin of moral\nevil, being not much defended at present, we may pass it over, as a\ngroundless conjecture.\n\nAs for Arminius, and his followers, they have very much insisted on a\nsupposition, which they have advanced, that the universal corruption of\nhuman nature arises only from imitation. In answer to which, though I\nwill not deny but that the progress and increase of sin, in particular\npersons, may be very much owing to the pernicious example of others,\nwith whom they are conversant; yet it seems very absurd to assign this,\nas the first reason thereof; for it may easily be observed, that this\ncorruption of nature, or disposition to sin, is visible in children,\nbefore they are capable of being drawn aside, by the influence of bad\nexamples; and indeed, their being corrupted thereby, is rather the\neffect, than the cause of this first propensity that there is in nature\nto sin; and it would soon appear, that, if they never saw any thing but\nwhat is excellent or worthy to be imitated in those, under whose care\nthey are, they would soon discover themselves, notwithstanding, prone to\nthe contrary vices. And we may as well suppose, that wisdom, or\nholiness, takes its rise from imitation, in a natural way, as that sin,\nor folly, does so: But nothing is more common, than for children to be\nvery degenerate from their parents. And whatever attempts are used to\ninstil principles of virtue into them, it is nothing else, but striving\nagainst the stream of corrupt nature, unless the grace of God interpose,\nand do that which imitation can never be the cause of.\n\nTherefore we must take some other method to account for this corruption\nof nature, and at the same time, maintain, that the soul is from God, by\nimmediate creation, which, though it be not so plainly contained in\nscripture, as other articles of faith are, yet scripture seems not to be\nwholly silent as to this matter; especially when God says, _Behold, all\nsouls are mine_, Ezek. xviii. 4. and elsewhere, which is more express to\nthis purpose, God speaks of the _souls that he made_, or created, Isa.\nlvii. 16. and the apostle, for this reason, styles him, _The Father of\nspirits_, Heb. xii. 9. and that in such a sense, as is opposed to _the\nfathers of the flesh_; therefore, taking this for granted, the\ndifficulty which will recur upon us, which we are to account for, is,\nhow can the soul, that comes out of God\u2019s immediate hand, be the subject\nof moral evil? To assert, that it is created guilty of Adam\u2019s first sin,\nor under an obligation to suffer that degree of punishment, which is due\nto it, is not inconsistent with the divine perfections, as will farther\nappear, when, under a following head, we consider what this punishment\nis: but to suppose that it is created by God impure, or with an\ninclination, or propensity to sin, cannot well be reconciled with the\nholiness of God.\n\nThis is what has been acknowledged by most divines, as one of the\ngreatest difficulties that occur in the whole scheme of divinity. Some,\nwith a becoming and religious modesty, have confessed their inability to\naccount for it, and advise us rather to bewail, and strive against it,\nthan to be too inquisitive about the origin and cause of it. And,\nindeed, this is far better, than either to darken counsel by words,\nwithout knowledge, or to advance what we cannot prove; and I would\nrather chuse to acquiesce in this humble ignorance thereof, than to\nassert any thing which contains the least insinuation of God\u2019s being the\nauthor of it. It is certain, there are many things which we know to be\ntrue, though we cannot, at the same time, account for the manner of\ntheir being what they are, and are at a loss to determine their first\noriginal, or the natural cause thereof: Thus, though we are sure that\nthe body is united to the soul, which acts by it, yet it is very hard to\ndetermine by what bands they are united, or how the soul moves the body,\nas its instrument in acting. Moreover, we know that the particles of\nmatter are united to one another; but it is difficult to determine what\nis the cause thereof. So if we enquire into the reason of the different\ncolour, or shape of herbs and plants; or why the grass is green, and not\nwhite or red; no one would be blamed if he should acknowledge himself to\nbe at a loss to account for these, and other things of the like nature.\nThe same may be said, if we should confess that we are at a loss to\ndetermine what is the first rise of the propensity of the nature of man\nto sin: nevertheless, if we keep within the bounds of modesty in our\nenquiries, and advance nothing contrary to the divine perfections, we\nmay safely, and with some advantage to the doctrine of original sin, say\nsomething as to this matter, that hereby we may remove the objections\nthat are brought, by some, against it.\n\nVarious ways have been taken, as was before observed, to account for the\norigin of moral evil, which we cannot acquiesce in, by reason of the\nmany absurdities that attend them; therefore it may be more excusable\nfor me to offer my humble thoughts about this matter, in which, I hope,\nI shall not much deviate from the sentiments of many, who have\njudiciously and happily maintained this doctrine.\n\nThere is, indeed, one conjecture, which I meet with, in a learned\njudicious divine, which differs very much from any account which we have\nof it by any other,[73] namely, that the mother while the child is in\nthe womb, having a sinful thought, impresses it on its soul, whereby it\nbecomes polluted, in the same manner as its body is sometimes marked by\nthe strength of her imagination: but this opinion is so very improbable,\nthat it will hardly gain any proselytes to it; and it only discovers how\nwilling some persons are to solve this difficulty though in an uncommon\nmethod, as being apprehensive that others have not sufficiently done it.\n\nBut, that we may account for this matter in the most unexceptionable\nway, which does not in the least, infer God to be the author of sin nor\noverthrow the doctrine of imputation of Adam\u2019s sin to his posterity, we\nmust consider this propensity of nature, or inclination that there is in\nthe souls of men to sin as a corrupt habit, and therefore that it is not\ninfused by God; and consequently though the soul, in its first creation,\nis guilty, that is, liable to suffer the punishment due to it for Adam\u2019s\nsin imputed, yet it does not come defiled out of the hands of God; or,\nas one well expresses it,[74] \u201cWe are not to think that God put original\nsin into men\u2019s souls; for how should he punish those souls, which he\nhimself had corrupted? And he adds, that it is a great wickedness to\nbelieve that God put into the soul an inclination to sin; though it is\ntrue God creates the souls of men destitute of heavenly gifts, and\nsupernatural light, and that justly because Adam lost those gifts for\nhimself and his posterity.\u201d\n\nAnother judicious divine[75] expresses himself to this purpose; that,\nthough the soul is created spotless, yet it is destitute of original\nrighteousness, as a punishment of Adam\u2019s first sin; and accordingly he\ndistinguishes between a soul\u2019s being pure, so as the soul of Adam was\nwhen it was first created, that is to say, not only sinless, but having\nhabits, or inclinations in its nature, which inclined it to what was\ngood; and its being created with a propensity, or inclination to evil,\nwhich he, with good reason denies; and, as a medium between both those\nextremes, in which the truth lies, observes, that the soul is created,\nby God, destitute of original righteousness, unable to do what is truly\ngood; and yet, having no positive inclination, or propensity in nature,\nto what is evil; this is plainly the sense of his words, which I have\ninserted in the margin.\n\nNow if it be enquired, how this corrupt habit, or inclination to sin, is\ncontracted? the corruption of nature necessarily ensues on the privation\nof original righteousness. Some have illustrated this by an apt\nsimilitude, taken from the travellers wandering out of his way, or\ntaking a wrong path, as occasioned by the darkness of the night, in\nwhich, his want of light is the occasion, though not properly the cause\nof his wandering. Thus man is destitute of original righteousness, or\nthose habits of supernatural grace, which are implanted in regeneration;\nand what can be the consequence thereof, but that his first actions, as\nsoon as he is capable of doing good or evil, must contain in them\nnothing less than a sin of omission, or a defect of, and disinclination\nto, what is good? and, by this means, the soul becomes defiled, or\ninclined to sin; so that we first suppose it indisposed to what is good,\nand that this arises from its being destitute of supernatural grace,\nwhich it lost by Adam\u2019s fall, and that God may deny this grace, without\nsupposing him to be the author of sin; for he was not obliged to\ncontinue that to Adam\u2019s posterity, which he forfeited, and lost for\nthem. And that which follows, from hence, is, that the heart of man, by\na continuance in sin after it is first tinctured with it, grows worse\nand worse, and more inclined to it than before. This I cannot better\nillustrate, than by comparing it to a drop of poison, injected into the\nveins of a man, which will by degrees corrupt the whole mass of blood.\n\nAs to what concerns the body, to which the soul was united, as giving\noccasion to these corrupt habits being contracted thereby, some have\ncompared this to sweet oil\u2019s being infected by a musty vessel, into\nwhich it is put; so the soul, created good, and put into a corrupt body,\nreceives contagion from thence: and this conjunction of the pure soul\nwith a corrupt body, is a just punishment of Adam\u2019s sin. Thus a very\nlearned and excellent divine accounts for this matter;[76] though this\nsimilitude does not indeed illustrate this matter in every circumstance,\ninasmuch as that tincture, which is received from a vessel in a physical\nway, cannot well agree with the corruption of the soul, which is of a\nmoral nature; but yet I would make this use of it, as to observe what\ndaily experience suggests, namely, that the constitution, or temperament\nof the body, has a very great influence on the soul, and is an occasion\nof various inclinations to sin, in which it acts, in an objective way.\nTherefore when we suppose a soul united to a body, that, according to\nthe frame and constitution of its nature has a tendency to incline it to\nsin, and this soul is deprived of those supernatural habits, which would\nhave fenced it against this contagion; what can ensue from hence, but\nthat corruption of nature, whereby men are inclined to what is evil?\nwhich inclination increases daily, till men arrive to the most rooted\nhabits and dispositions to all that is bad, and are, with more\ndifficulty, reclaimed from it. This leads us to consider,\n\nIV. The conveyance of original sin, from our first parents to their\nposterity, by natural generation, or how we are said to be born in sin.\nIt is not the sin of our immediate parents that is imputed to us, for\nthey stand in no other relation, but as natural, and not federal heads\nof their posterity; therefore the meaning of that answer, in which this\ndoctrine is contained, is only this, that original sin is conveyed to\nus, by our immediate parents, with our being; so that, as we are born\nmen, we are born sinners. Now, that we may consider this in consistency\nwith what has been before laid down nothing can be inferred, from hence,\nbut that the guilt of Adam\u2019s first sin is conveyed to us with our being,\nand that habitual inclination that we have, which we call a propensity\nof nature to sin, is the consequence hereof; so that what our Saviour\nsays, is a great truth, _That which is born of the flesh, is flesh_,\nJohn iii. 6. or every one that is born of sinful parents, will, as soon\nas he is capable thereof, be prone to sin. And this leads us to\nconsider,\n\nWhat is objected against what has been before laid down, in explaining\nthis doctrine as though it were inconsistent with the sense of several\nscriptures, which speak of sin, as derived from our immediate parents.\nFor the understanding of which, in general, let it be considered, that\nno sense of any scripture is true, that casts the least reflection on\nthe divine perfections. If we could but prove, that our souls were\npropagated by our immediate parents, as our bodies are, there would be\nno difficulty in allowing the sense the objectors give of several\nscriptures, from whence they attempt to account for the corruption of\nnature in a different way, since God would not then be the immediate\nauthor thereof. But, supposing the soul to be created by God, we must\ntake some other method to account for the sense of some scriptures,\nwhich are brought in opposition to the foregoing explication of the\norigin of moral evil.\n\nThe first scripture, which is generally brought against it, is, in Psal.\nli. 5. _Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother\nconceive me_; the meaning of which is, I was conceived, and born guilty\nof sin, with an inability to do what is good, and in such a state, that\nactual sin would necessarily ensue, as soon as I was capable of\ncommitting it, which would bring with it a propensity to all manner of\nsin. And that David had a sense of guilt, as well as the pollution of\nnature, is plain, from several verses of this Psalm; especially in ver.\n9, 14. It is therefore as though he should say, I was a guilty creature,\nas soon as I was conceived in the womb; and left of God, and so sin has\nthe ascendant over me. I was conceived a sinner by imputation, under the\nguilt of Adam\u2019s first sin; and to this I have added much more guilt, and\nlately that of blood-guiltiness. So that though he is said to have been\n_shapen in iniquity_, it does not necessarily follow, that his soul was\ncreated with infused habits of sin. Whatever the parents are the cause\nof, with respect to this corruption and pollution, let it be attributed\nto them; but far be it from us to say, that God is the cause thereof.\n\nAgain, it is said, in Job xiv. 4. _Who can bring a clean thing out of an\nunclean? no not one_. It is no strain upon the sense of this text, to\nsuppose, that by _unclean_, he means guilty; and by _cleanness_,\ninnocency, as opposed to it; for, in most places of this book, it is so\ntaken, that is, in a forensick sense; and therefore, why not in this?\nAnd, if so, then it is not at all inconsistent with the above-mentioned\nexplication of this doctrine. See chap. xi. 4. _I am clean in thine\neyes_, that is, guiltless; otherwise Zophar\u2019s reply to him would not\nhave been so just, when he saith, _God exacteth of thee less than thine\niniquity deserveth_; and, in chap. xv. 14. _What is man, that he should\nbe clean? and he, that is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?_\nwhere, to be _righteous_, seems to be exegetical of being _clean_; and\nboth of them, being taken in a forensick sense, it agrees well with what\nJob is often reproved for, by his friends, namely, boasting too much of\nhis righteousness, or cleanness: thus he says, in chap. xxxiii. 9. _I am\nclean without transgression, neither is there iniquity in me_; that is,\nI am not so guilty, as to deserve such a punishment, as he inflicts: _He\nfindeth occasions against me_, &c. Surely, _cleanness_ here is the same\nwith innocence, as opposed to guilt; and, in chap. ix. 30. _If I wash\nmyself with snow water, and make my hands never so clean_; this plainly\nimplies, that if he should pretend himself guiltless, yet he could not\nanswer the charge which God would bring against him, neither could they\n_come together in judgment_, ver. 32. Now, if this be so frequently, if\nnot always, the sense of _clean_, in other places of this book, why may\nnot we take the sense of these words, _Who can bring a clean thing out\nof an unclean_, to be this; that a guilty child is born of a guilty\nparent, which will be accompanied with uncleanness, and it will be prone\nto sin, as soon as it is capable thereof?\n\nAnother scripture, which we bring to prove original sin, is in Gen. vi.\n5. _Every imagination of the thoughts of the heart of man, is only evil\ncontinually_. Why may not we understand it thus? The imagination of the\nthoughts are evil, as soon as there are imaginations, or thoughts,\nthough not before. And this rather respects the corruption of nature,\nthan the first rise of it; and so does that parallel scripture; in Gen.\nviii. 21. _The imagination of man\u2019s heart is evil from his youth_; q. d.\nSin increases with the exercise of reason.\n\nAnd, in Psal. lviii. 3. _The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go\nastray as soon as they be born speaking lies_. This agrees well enough\nwith what we have said concerning their separation from God, from the\nwomb, from whence arises actual sin; so that they _speak lies_, as soon\nas they are capable of it.\n\nThere is also another scripture, usually brought to prove original sin,\nwhich is to be understood in a sense, not much unlike that which we but\nnow mentioned, _viz._ Isa. xlviii. 8. _Thou wast called a transgressor\nfrom the womb_. This doth not overthrow what we have said; for a person\nmay be a transgressor, as it were, from the womb, and yet the soul not\nhave a propensity to sin implanted in it by God, in its first creation.\n\nAgain, in Gen. v. 3. _Adam begat a son in his own likeness_, that is, a\nfallen creature, involved in guilt, and liable to the curse, like\nhimself; and that would be like him, in actual sin, when capable of it,\nborn in _his image_, as having lost the _divine image_.\n\nAgain, in John iii. 6. _That which is born of the flesh, is flesh_. We\nmay understand this, that every one that is born of sinful parents, is a\nsinner, destitute of the Spirit of God, which is a great truth. But\nsurely our Saviour did not design hereby to signify, that any one is\nframed by God with a propensity of sin; which is all that we militate\nagainst in this head.[77]\n\nV. The last thing to be considered, is, that all actual transgressions\nproceed from original sin. These are like so many streams that flow from\nthis fountain of corruption; the one discovers to us what we are by\nnature; the other, what we are by practice; and both afford us matter\nfor repentance, and great humiliation, in the sight of God. But since we\nshall have occasion to enlarge on that part of this subject, which more\nespecially relates to actual transgressions, with their respective\naggravations, in some following answers,[78] we pass it over at present;\nand shall conclude this head with some practical inferences from what\nhas been said, concerning the corruption of our nature, as being the\nspring of all actual transgressions.\n\n1. We ought to put a due difference between the first discoveries there\nare of this corruption of our nature in our infancy, and that which\narises from a course, or progress in sin; the latter has certainly\ngreater aggravations in it than the former, and is like a spark of fire,\nblown up into a flame. Accordingly, it is our duty, as the apostle says,\nto _exhort one another daily, while it is called to-day, lest any be\nhardened_, that is, lest this corruption of nature be increased,\n_through the deceitfulness of sin_, Heb. iii. 13.\n\n2. Let us carefully distinguish between being born innocent, which the\nPelagians affirm, and we deny, and being born defiled with sin, and so\nhaving a propensity of nature to it, as soon as we have a being; or let\nus more especially take heed that we do not charge this on God, as\nthough he were the author thereof, as well as of our being, as though it\nwere infused by him, and not acquired by us.\n\n3. Since this corruption of nature so early discovers itself, and abides\nin us, as long as we are in this world, let us take heed that we do not\nuse means to increase it, by giving way to presumptuous sins; or\nendeavour to excite or draw it forth, either in ourselves, or others;\nfor this will occasion abundance of actual transgressions.\n\nThus having considered that guilt which we bring with us into the world,\nand that corruption of nature, which discovers itself, as soon as we\nappear to be intelligent creatures, or are capable of any disposition to\nsin; we proceed to speak concerning the misery and punishment that\nensues hereupon.\n\nFootnote 67:\n\n _See Quest._ cv.-cli.\n\nFootnote 68:\n\n Gen. vi. 5. Is a picture of antideluvian iniquity, it not only proves\n that guilt was universal, and all men affected; that it was general,\n the greater portion of the actions of men being evil; but that the\n depravity of every unsanctified man was total, extending not merely to\n his _thoughts_, but to his _imagination_ \u05d9\u05e6\u05e8, the first _frame_ or\n _form_ of the thoughts. They were not partially, but _only evil_, and\n that not occasionally but _continually_. Yet the race who were\n destroyed, must have performed relative duties, parental and filial;\n and the tribes seem to have lived as free from war, at least, as those\n who have existed since the flood. If crimes before the flood exceeded\n in degree and multitude those of modern times, yet if they differed\n not in their nature, it will follow, that when the unrenewed in our\n days, are kind parents, dutiful children, honest men, and good\n citizens, they may be totally depraved; the \u201c_imagination of the\n thoughts of their hearts may be only evil continually_.\u201d As we know\n not their hearts, are to judge of them by their fruits, and are\n charitably to impute their actions to better motives, we may with\n propriety commend what God will condemn. He sees the intentions, and\n the aversion of heart to him and holiness, and though he may reward\n virtuous conduct in this world, to encourage virtue, yet will\n eventually judge righteous judgment, and connect every action with its\n motives.\n\n This scripture also shews us not only, that the _material goodness_ of\n actions will not recommend them to God, but that _conscientiousness_\n in the discharge of relative duties, (for this must have existed\n before the flood,) will not recommend them where the love of God,\n which is peculiar to the renewed mind, is absent.\n\nFootnote 69:\n\n _The Marcionites in the second century, and the Manichees in the\n third._\n\nFootnote 70:\n\n _See Page 54-57, ante._\n\nFootnote 71:\n\n _See a book, supposed to be written in defence hereof by Glanvil,\n entitled, Lux Orientalis._\n\nFootnote 72:\n\n _Tertullian was of this opinion, [Vid. ejusd. de Anima] and Augustin,\n though he sometimes appears to give into the opinion of the traduction\n of the soul; yet, at other times, he is in great doubt about it, as\n ready to give it up for an indefensible opinion, Vid. Aug. de Orig.\n Anim. & in Gen. ad liter lib. 10._\n\nFootnote 73:\n\n _Vid. Pictet. Theol. Chr. Lib. V. cap. 7. Absit ut animam creari\n impuram dicamus, cum nihil impurum e Dei manibus prodire possit.\u2014Dum\n infans est in utero matris, cum intime ei conjungatur, objecta in ejus\n cerebrum easdem impressiones efficiunt, ac in matris cerebrum.\u2014Hoc\n patet ex eo quod contingit mulieribus pr\u00e6gnantibus; cum enim avide\n inspiciunt aliquid, vel rubro, vel flavo colore, vel pallido tinctum,\n contigit s\u00e6pissime ut infantes quos in utero gestant, tali colore\n tincti nascantur. Ita intime corpus & animam uniri, ut ad motum\n corporis, ceri\u00e6 oriantur in mente cogationes.\u2014Motus, qui fiunt in\n cerebro infantium idem pr\u00e6stare in illis, ac in matribus, nempe eorum\n animam recens creatam rebus sensibilibus & carnalibus alligare; unde\n videmus infantium animas omnia ad se & ad suum referre corpus._\n\nFootnote 74:\n\n _See Du Moulin\u2019s Anatomy of Armnianism, Chap. X. \u00a7 3, 15, 17._\n\nFootnote 75:\n\n _See Turret. Instit. Theol. Elenct. Tom. I. Loc. 9. Q. 12. \u00a7 8, 9.\n Licet anima sine ulla labe creatur a Deo, non creatur tamen cum\n justitia originali, qualis anima Adami, ad imaginem Dei; sed cum ejus\n carentia in p\u0153nam primi peccati. Ut hic distinguendum sit inter animam\n puram, impuram, & non puram. Illa pura dicitur, qu\u00e6 ornata est habitu\n sanctitatis; impura, qu\u00e6 contrarium habitum injustiti\u00e6 habet; non\n pura, qu\u00e6 licet nullum habeat habitum bonum, nullum tamen habet malum,\n sed creatur simpliciter cum facultatibus naturalibus; qualis\n supponitur creari a Deo post lapsum, quia imago Dei amissa semel per\n peccatum, non potest amplius restitui, nisi regenerationis beneficio\n per Spiritum Sanctum. Quamvis autem anim\u00e6 creantur a Deo destitut\u00e6\n justitia originali; non propterea Deus potest censeri author peccati,\n quia aliud est impuritatem infundere, aliud puritatem non dare, qua\n homo se indignum reddidit in Adamo._\n\nFootnote 76:\n\n _See Perkins on the Creed._\n\nFootnote 77:\n\n The mind of man is as open to the view of God, as our words or actions\n are; the intention is ordinarily the seat of guilt; for the merely\n physical action of the body deserves neither praise nor blame; the\n Lord is able not only to detect, but to punish in every instance such\n guilt; his justice therefore requires that he should exercise such\n power.\n\n To prefer the creatures to the Creator, is to deny his superior\n excellency, and that he is the source from whence we have derived the\n good which we possess; it is to give the honour which is due to him,\n unto others; it is a robbery committed on him; it is a revolting from\n his allegiance, and treason, which ought to be punished.\n\n It is an evidence that we have no love for him, when we desire\n communion and acquaintance with other objects on their own account. It\n is a proof of enmity against him, for we cannot at the same time fix\n our highest affections on sensual pursuits and on holiness; and an\n attachment to the former evinces hatred of the latter; and so an\n aversion to an holy God. If we are enemies to God, Omnipotence must\n and will prevail, nor can he suffer in the universe, his enemies to be\n finally prosperous, possessing still their enmity.\n\n Where there exists not the love of God, there is no obedience to his\n laws, for this is the principle of obedience; all the good deeds of\n such are but a semblance of holiness, and must be rejected by him who\n views the motive with the action. Disobedience to his laws is to be\n punished with death, the implied penalty of all divine laws; and the\n least punishment that the magnitude of an offence against an infinite\n Majesty can admit.\n\nFootnote 78:\n\n _See Quest._ cv.-cli.\n\n\n\n\n Quest. XXVII.\n\n\n QUEST. XXVII. _What misery did the fall bring upon mankind?_\n\n ANSW. The fall brought upon mankind the loss of communion with God,\n his displeasure and curse, so as we are, by nature, children of\n wrath, bond-slaves to Satan, and justly liable to all punishments in\n this world, and that which is to come.\n\nHaving considered the doctrine of original sin, as imputed to, and\ninherent in us, we are now led to speak concerning the miseries that are\nconsequent hereupon, or the punishment that is due to it. And, inasmuch\nas the former of these is equal in all; and the latter increases, in\nproportion to that degree of obstinacy, and hardness of heart, which\ndiscovers itself in all ages, and conditions of life, and it is attended\nwith greater guilt, as it is more deeply rooted in us, and gains very\ngreat strength by actual sin; it is necessary for us to consider the\npunishment due to original sin, as such, and how it differs from a\ngreater degree thereof, which is due to its increasing guilt. The former\nof these is not distinguished from the latter, by many who treat on this\nsubject; which gives occasion to some, who deny original sin, to\nrepresent it in the most terrible view, as though there were no\ndifference between the wrath of God, that infants are exposed to, and\nthat which is inflicted on the most obdurate sinner: but, that we may\nremove prejudices against this doctrine, and set it in a just light, we\nshall consider the punishment due to original sin, in both these\nrespects.\n\nI. The punishment due to original sin, as such, namely, in those who are\ncharged with no other guilt, but that of Adam\u2019s first sin. This more\nespecially respects those that die in their infancy, before they are\ncapable of making any addition to it. Concerning these, I cannot but\nconclude with Augustin, in his defence of original sin against the\nPelagians, that the punishment thereof is the most mild of any, and\ncannot be reckoned so great, as that it might be said of them, that _it\nhad been better for them not to have been born_.[79]\n\nThat this may farther appear, let it be considered, that the punishment\ndue to actual sin, or the corruption of nature increased thereby, is\nattended with accusations of conscience, inasmuch as the guilt, that is\ncontracted by it, arises from the opposition of the will to God; and the\nalienation of the affections from him, is oftentimes attended with\nrebellion, against a great degree of light, and many other aggravations,\ntaken from the engagements which we are under to the contrary, and is\npersisted in with obstinacy, against all those checks of conscience, and\nmeans used to prevent it; and, in proportion to the degree thereof,\nthey, who contract this guilt, are said, as our Saviour speaks of the\nscribes and Pharisees, to be liable to the _greater damnation_, Matt.\nxxiii. 14. and the prophet Jeremiah speaks of some of the greatest\nopposers of his message, as those who should be destroyed with _double\ndestruction_, Jer. xvii. 18. This is certainly a greater degree of\npunishment, than that which is due to original sin, as such; and, with\nrespect to these, there are oftentimes many sad instances of the wrath\nof God breaking in upon the conscience, as he says by the Psalmist, that\nhe would _reprove them, and set their iniquities in order before their\neyes_, Psal. l. 21. and what our Saviour says elsewhere, concerning the\n_worm that dieth not_, Mark ix. 44. is to be applied to them. But this\npunishment does not belong to those who have no other guilt, but that of\nAdam\u2019s sin, imputed to them.\n\nIf this can be made appear, as, I hope, we shall be able to do, it may\nhave a tendency to remove some prejudices, which many entertain against\nthe doctrine of original sin, who express themselves with such an air of\ninsult, as though they were opposing a doctrine which is contrary to the\ndictates of human nature, as well as represents God, as exercising the\ngreatest severity against those who are chargeable with no other sin\nthan this; and they generally lay hold on some unwary expressions,\ncontributing very little to the defence of this doctrine, which might as\nwell have been spared; for they are no less exceptionable, though\nprefaced with an apology, for the want of pity, which such like\nunguarded expressions seem to contain in them, when they say, that their\nmilder thoughts, concerning this matter, will do those infants, who are\ntormented in hell, no good, as their severer ones can do them no\nprejudice. We may therefore be allowed to make a farther enquiry into\nthis matter, especially when we consider, that those, who die in\ninfancy, will appear, at the last day, to have been a very considerable\npart of mankind. And some tender parents have had a due concern of\nspirit about their future state, and would be very glad, were it\npossible for them, to have some hopes concerning the happiness thereof.\n\nVarious have been the conjectures of divines about it. The Pelagians,\nand those who verge towards their scheme, have concluded, that they are\nall saved, as supposing that they are innocent, and not, in the least\nconcerned in Adam\u2019s sin: but this is to set aside the doctrine we are\nmaintaining; and therefore, I cannot think their reasoning, in this\nrespect very conclusive.\n\nOthers, who do not deny original sin, suppose, notwithstanding, that the\nguilt thereof is atoned for, by the blood of Christ. This would be a\nvery agreeable notion, could it be proved; and all that I shall say, in\nanswer to it, is, that it wants confirmation. As for those who suppose,\nwith the Papists, that the guilt of original sin is washed away by\nbaptism, as some of the fathers have also asserted, this has so many\nabsurd consequences attending it, that I need not spend time in opposing\nit; one of them is, that it makes that, which, at most, is but a sign or\nordinance, for our faith, in which we hope for the grace of regeneration\nto be the natural means of conferring it, which is contrary to the\ndesign of all the ordinances, which God has appointed: but, passing by\nthis, which will afford little foundation for hope.\n\nOthers have concluded, that all the infants of believing parents, dying\nin infancy, are saved, as supposing that they are interested in the\ncovenant of grace, in which God promises, that he will be a God to\nbelievers, and their seed. This would be a very comfortable thought, to\nthose who have hope concerning their own state. But I cannot find that\nthis argument is sufficiently maintained; since it seems very evident,\nthat all such like promises rather respect the external, than the saving\nblessings of the covenant of grace.\n\nOthers therefore conclude, (as many good and pious Christians have done,\nthat when they have been enabled, by an act of faith, in which they have\nenjoyed some sensible experience of the powerful influence of the Holy\nSpirit, to give up their infant-seed to Christ, whether it be in\nbaptism, or not) from the frame of their own spirit, and the evidence\nthey have had of the power of God, exciting this act of faith, that God\nwould own that grace which he hath enabled them to exercise, and\nconsequently that he has accepted of this solemn act of dedication of\nthem to him, which has given them comfortable and quieting thoughts\nabout the salvation of their infant-seed. This is not only an excellent\nmethod, used by them, but it seems to be as just a way of reasoning\nabout the salvation of those who die in infancy, as any that is\ngenerally made use of; and, it may be, David might infer the salvation\nof his child, when he says, _I shall go to him; but he shall not return\nto me_, 2 Sam. xii. 23. from some such method as this. But, since these\nare uncommon instances of faith, and such as every sincere Christian has\nnot always been found in the exercise of, I would hope, that there are\nmultitudes of infants saved, concerning whom we have no certain ground\nto determine who they are; and why may not we suppose, that there are\nmany of them, who belong to the election of grace, that are not the seed\nof believing parents? However, notwithstanding all the pious and kind\nthoughts, which the conjectures of men suggest, we must be content to\nleave this, as a secret that belongs to God, and not unto us to know.\n\nTherefore all that I shall attempt, at present, is, to prove, that if\nall, who die in their infancy, are not saved, yet their condemnation is\nnot like that which is due to actual sin, or those habits thereof, which\nare contracted by men. And here it must be allowed, pursuant to our\nformer method of reasoning, that, if they are not saved, they have the\npunishment of loss inflicted on them; for the right to the heavenly\nblessedness, which Adam forfeited and lost, respected not only himself,\nbut all his posterity. Whether they have any farther degree of\npunishment inflicted on them, or how far they are liable to the\npunishment of sense, I dare not pretend to determine. I do not care to\nconclude, with some of the Remonstrants, such as Episcopius, Curcell\u00e6us,\nand others, that they always remain in an infantine state, or, that they\nhave no more ideas in the other world, than they had in this; for this\nis to suppose what cannot be proved. Besides, if they always remain in\nthis state, this must be supposed, either to be the consequence of\nnature, and argued from their want of ideas, while they were in this\nworld, or else it must be by a particular dispensation of providence,\nrespecting some infants in the next, and not all. To suppose the former,\nis to suppose that none are saved, since remaining in an infantile\nstate, is not salvation; for it is beyond dispute, the soul that is\nsaved, whether it went out of the world an infant, or a man is\nexceedingly enlarged, and rendered receptive of the heavenly\nblessedness. And if, on the other hand, they suppose, that their\nremaining in this infantile state, is by a particular dispensation of\nprovidence, this, was it true, would be a small punishment, indeed,\ninflicted on them for Adam\u2019s sin: But we have as little, or less ground\nto conclude this, than that all infants are saved; and therefore I\ncannot give into this notion, which, indeed, differs but little from\nthat of the Papists, who suppose them, if dying unbaptized, to remain in\na state of insensibility; which is no other, than an ungrounded\nconjecture. And, as for the account which we have, in some of their\nwritings concerning the place alloted for them, which they call _Limbus\nInfantium_, and its situation between heaven and hell, this is no better\nthan a theological romance; and it cannot but be reckoned trifling and\nludicrous, and nothing else but an imposing their own fancies, as\narticles of faith.\n\nI dare not, indeed, allow myself to be too peremptory, or give my\nthoughts too great a loose on this subject: but, since it is taken for\ngranted by all, who give into the doctrine of original sin, that\ninfants, if not saved, are liable to the punishment of loss, which has\nbeen before considered, as the immediate consequence of the imputation\nof Adam\u2019s sin; yet it doth not appear, to me, that they have such a\ntormenting sense of the greatness of their loss, as others have who were\nadult, and had received the knowledge of divine things, which infants\nare not capable of. These, as it is more than probable, carry the ideas,\nwhich they had received of divine things, out of the world with them,\nwhich infants cannot be said to do; and therefore, if ever they have the\nknowledge thereof, and consequently of the glory of the heavenly state,\nit must be by extraordinary revelation. How far they may be led into\nthis matter, by observing the glorious work, which shall be performed in\nthe most visible manner, in the day of judgment, I pretend not to\ndetermine. This, indeed, will give them some apprehensions of the\nhappiness which others are possessed of, and they are excluded from: But\neven this cannot have so great a tendency to enhanse their misery, as\nwhen hardened and presumptuous sinners, who have despised and neglected\nthe means of grace, are said, as our Saviour speaks to the Jews, _To see\nAbraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of God, and they themselves\nthrust out_, Luke xiii. 28. as intimating, that this will, in a judicial\nway, be a means to enhanse their misery; and consequently they cannot\nbut have such a tormenting sense thereof, as what will make their loss\nappear greater, and so render them more miserable than infants can be,\nwho never had these means of grace in this world.\n\nBut, because it is not safe to be too peremptory as to this matter, all\nthat I shall farther observe is, that whatever conceptions they may have\nof the happiness, which they are not possessed of, yet they shall not\nhave that part of the punishment of sin, which consists in\nself-reflection, on the dishonour that they have brought to God or the\nvarious aggravations of sin committed, which is a very great degree of\nthe punishment of sin in hell; and therefore, when the wrath of God is\nsaid to break in on the consciences of men, whereby, in a judicial way,\nsins, before committed, are brought to remembrance, and the means of\ngrace, which they have neglected, cannot but occasion the greatest\ndistress and misery, this is certainly a punishment that infants cannot\nbe liable to; and, if the condition of the inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon\nis represented by our Saviour, as _more tolerable than that of\nCapernaum_, so in proportion the condemnation of infants, who have no\nother guilt but that of original sin, will be more tolerable than that\nof the heathen, inasmuch as they had no natural capacities of doing good\nor evil. And this is all that I pretend to determine, which amounts to\nno more than this, that, since punishment must be proportioned to the\ncrime; as they are liable only to the guilt of Adam\u2019s sin, which is much\nless than being liable to it, with those other transgressions that\nproceed from it, therefore their punishment must be less than that of\nany others. This, I think, may safely be asserted: and, if we proceed no\nfarther in our enquiries about this matter, but confess our ignorance of\nmany things relating to the state and capacity of separate souls, it\nwill be more excuseable, than for us to pretend to a greater degree of\nknowledge, than is consistent with our present state.\n\nII. We shall consider the punishment due to original sin, when attended\nwith many actual sins, proceeding from a nature defiled, and prone to\nrebel against God. This is greater or less, in proportion to the habits\nof sin contracted, as will be more particularly considered, when we\nspeak of the aggravations of sin, and its desert of punishment.[80] We\nshall therefore, at present, speak to it in the method in which it is\nlaid down in this answer.\n\n1. By the fall of our first parents, all mankind lost communion with\nGod. This was enjoyed at first; for God having made man, with faculties\ncapable of this privilege, designed to converse with him; and, indeed,\nthis was one of the blessings promised in the covenant, which he was\nunder, and it was a kind of prelibation of the heavenly state; therefore\nit follows, that the fall of our first parents could not but first\nexpose themselves, and then their posterity, to the loss of this\nprivilege; and, indeed, this was the more immediate result of sin\ncommitted, and guilt hereby contracted. It is a reflection on the divine\nperfections to suppose that God will have communion with sinners, while\nthey remain in a state of rebellion against him; or that he will love\nand manifest himself to them, and admit them into his presence, as\nfriends and favourites, unless there be a Mediator who engages to repair\nthe injury offered to the holiness and justice of God, and secure the\nglory of his perfections, in making reconciliation for sin, and thereby\nbringing them into a state of friendship with God: But this privilege\nman had no right to, or knowledge of when first he fell, and\nconsequently God and man could not _walk together_, as _not being\nagreed_, Amos iii. 3. God was obliged, in honour, to withdraw from him,\nand thereby testify his displeasure against sin, as he tells his people,\n_Your iniquities have separated between you and your God; and your sins\nhave hid his face from you_, Isa. lix. 2.\n\nThis consequence of sin is judicial; and, at the same time, through the\ncorruption of nature, as the result of that enmity against God, which\nfollows on our fallen state, man is farther considered, as not desiring\nto converse with God: His guilt inclined him to fly from him, as a\nsin-revenging Judge; and his loss of God\u2019s supernatural image,\nconsisting in holiness of heart and life, rendered him disinclined, yea,\naverse to this privilege; so that, as he was separate from the presence\nof God, he desired to have nothing more to do with him, which is the\nimmediate result of his sinful and fallen state.\n\n2. Man, by his fall, was exposed to the divine displeasure, or to the\nwrath of God, in which respect, as the apostle says, we are, _by nature\nchildren of wrath_, Eph. ii. 3. by which we are not to understand, as\nsome do, who deny the guilt and punishment of original sin, that nothing\nis intended hereby, but that we are inclined to wrath as signifying\nthose depraved and corrupt passions, whereby we are prone to hate God,\nand holiness, which is his image in man, which is rather the consequence\nof original sin, and discovers what we are by practice, whereas this\ntext speaks of what we are by nature; and it seems a very great strain\nand force on the sense of the word, when some understand this mode of\nspeaking, that we are children of wrath only by custom, which according\nto the proverbial expression is a second nature; or as tho\u2019 it only\nsignified the temper of their minds, or their behaviour towards one\nanother, as giving way to their passions as the apostle says, that _they\nlived in malice and envy, and hated one another_, Tit. iii. 3. as though\nit denoted only the effects of the corruption of nature, not their\nliableness to the wrath of God due to it; whereas it is plain, that the\napostle makes use of an hebraism, very frequently occurring in\nscripture, both in the Old and New Testament; as when a person, that is\nguilty of a capital crime, and liable to suffer death, is called, _A son\nof death_: so our Saviour calls Judas, who was liable to perdition, _A\nson of perdition_, John xvii. 12. so here _children of wrath_ are those\nthat were liable to the wrath of God, by which we are to understand that\npunishment, which is the demerit of sin; not that wrath is a passion in\nGod, as it is in us; but it signifies either his will to punish, or his\nactual inflicting punishment on them, in proportion to the crimes\ncommitted, whereby he designs to glorify his holiness. If this be meant\nby the punishment due to all mankind, as they come into the world with\nthe guilt of the sin of our first parents, in which respect guilt\ndenotes a liableness to punishment and all punishment contains some\ndegree of wrath; I say, if this be the meaning of their being so by\nnature, I am far from denying it. For the only thing that I have\nmilitated against, is, the supposition, that the punishment due to\noriginal sin imputed, bears an equal proportion to that of guilt\ncontracted, whereby the nature of man is rendered more depraved, by a\ncontinuance in sin; and therefore I cannot but acquiesce in that\nexplication given hereof by the learned Beza, who is a most strenuous\ndefender of original sin,[81] who, when he speaks of men as children of\nwrath, _by nature_, as all mankind are included herein, understands\nthis, not as referring to the human nature, as created by God; but as\ncorrupted by its compliance with the suggestions of Satan; and therefore\nwe suppose, that as the corruption of nature is daily increased,\nwhatever punishment is due to it, at first, there is notwithstanding a\ngreater condemnation, which it is exposed to, as the consequence of sin\ncommitted and continued in; and this is described, in scripture, in such\na way, as renders it, beyond expression, dreadful; _Who knoweth the\npower of thine anger? even according to thy fear, so is thy wrath_,\nPsal. xc. 11. or, as the prophet says, _Who can stand before his\nindignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of his anger_, Nah. i.\n6.\n\n3. Man, as fallen, is exposed to the curse of God, which is an external\ndeclaration of his hatred of sin, and will to punish it, which we\nsometimes call the condemning sentence of the law, as the apostle says,\n_As many as are of the works of the law, are under a curse as it is\nwritten, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are\nwritten in the book of the law to do them_, Gal. iii. 10. so that\nwhatever threatnings there are by which God discovers his infinite\nhatred of sin, these we are liable to as the consequence of our fallen\nstate; and accordingly, as we were, at first, separate from God, the sin\nof our nature tends, according to the various aggravations thereof, to\nmake the breach the wider, and our condemnation much greater.\n\n4. By the fall, we became bond-slaves to Satan: thus it is said, that\n_the devil has the power of death_, Heb. ii. 14. and sinners are\ndescribed, as _walking according to the prince of the power of the air,\nthe spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience_, Eph. ii.\n2. and he is elsewhere described, as _a strong man armed, who keeps the\npalace, till a stronger than he shall overcome him, and take from him\nall his armour_, Luke xi. 21, 22. The heart of man is the throne in\nwhich he reigns, and men are naturally inclined to yield themselves\nslaves to him, and corrupt nature gives him the greatest advantage\nagainst us. None of us can say, as our Saviour did, _The prince of this\nworld cometh, and hath nothing in me_, John xiv. 30. for we are as ready\nto comply, as he is to tempt, especially if not prevented by the grace\nof God, and therefore may well be said to be bond-slaves to him. No age,\nor condition of life, is exempted from his assaults, and he suits his\ntemptations to our natural tempers, and hereby we are overcome, and more\nand more enslaved by him; and certainly this must be a state of misery,\nand that more especially, because such are enemies to Christ, and\nwithdraw themselves from his service, despising his protection, and the\nrewards he has promised to his faithful servants; and our Saviour says,\nthat _we cannot serve two masters_, Mat. vi. 24. and so long as we\ncontinue bond-slaves to Satan, we contract greater guilt, and the\ndominion of sin increases therewith; so that to be the servants of\nSatan, is to be the servants of sin; and we are herein miserable, in\nthat we serve one who intends nothing but our ruin, and is pleased in\nall steps leading to it, and will be as ready to accuse, torment, and\nmake us more miserable in the end, as he is to solicit or desire our\nservice, or as we can be to obey him. Let us therefore use our utmost\nendeavours, that we may be free from this bondage and servitude; and\naccordingly let us consider,\n\n(1.) That Satan has no right to our service. Though he be permitted to\nrule over the children of disobedience; yet he has no divine grant, or\nwarrant for it, to render it lawful for him to demand it, or us to\ncomply therewith, and he is no other than an usurper, and declared enemy\nto the king of heaven; and, though sinners are suffered to give\nthemselves up to him, this is far from being by divine approbation;\ntherefore,\n\n(2.) Let us professedly renounce, groan under, and endeavour, through\nthe grace of God to withdraw ourselves from his service, whenever we are\nled captive by him, and not be his willing slaves, to obey him with our\nfree consent, or out of choice, and with pleasure; and, in order\nhereunto,\n\n(3.) Let us list ourselves into Christ\u2019s service, put ourselves under\nhis protection, and desire his help, against the wiles and fiery darts\nof the devil.\n\n(4.) Let us improve the proclamation of liberty made in the gospel, and\nrejoice in it, as the most desirable blessing, _If the Son make you\nfree, then shall ye be free indeed_, John viii. 36.\n\nThe last thing observed in this answer, is, that, as fallen creatures we\nare justly liable to all punishments in this world, and that which is to\ncome; by which we are to understand, not only the consequences of\noriginal sin, imputed to, but inherent in us, and increased by that\nguilt which we daily contract, which exposes the sinner to punishment in\nboth worlds, in proportion to the aggravations thereof. This we are led\nto speak to, in the two following answers.[82]\n\nFootnote 79:\n\n _See Aug. contra Julianum, Lib. V. cap. 8. Ego non dico, parvulos sine\n baptismo Christi morientes tanta p\u0153na esse plectendos; ut eis non\n nasci potius expediret. Et ejusd. de peccat. merit. & remsis. Lib. I.\n cap. 16. Potest proinde recte dici, parvulos eine baptismo de corpore\n exeuntes, in damnatione omnium mitissima futuros._\n\nFootnote 80:\n\n _See Quest._ cli. clii.\n\nFootnote 81:\n\n _Vid Bez. in loc. Ubicunque Ira est, ibi & peccatum; quo sine\n exceptione involvi totam humanam gentem idem testatur, Rom. i. 18. Sed\n naturam tamen intellige non quatenus creata est; verum quatenus per\n Diaboli suggestionem corrupta est a seipsa._\n\nFootnote 82:\n\n It has been frequently objected, if they that are in the flesh be dead\n in sin, or so wholly inclined to evil, that they \u201c_cannot please\n God_,\u201d they must be viewed as miserable rather than guilty, as objects\n of pity rather than subjects for punishment.\n\n To analyse is to enervate this objection. Wherein consists the\n impotency, and what is the guilt of an evil action? If there be any\n physical defect in the understanding, or any external obstacle, which\n may prevent a conformity to the revealed will of God; it is an excuse,\n the party is clear: but this inability is of a different kind; the\n sensual heart is prevailingly inclined to the objects of time and\n sense, and the mind possesses no ability to resist its strongest\n inclination, which is but the common case of every deliberate choice.\n Evil men cannot see, because they shut their eyes; they cannot hear,\n because they stop their ears; they cannot come to Christ, or, which is\n the same thing, will not apply to him by faith. They persevere in such\n opposition until death or despair fixes their enmity; except their\n wills are changed, and they are drawn by divine grace.\n\n The guilt of an evil action, depends not upon, or exists not in the\n mere action of the body; otherwise brutes, and machines of wood and\n metal, would be subjects of blame. The guilt is seated in the\n intention, and lies in the inclination of the mind to that which is\n prohibited; and the habitual preponderancy of the inclinations to\n evil, marks a worse character, than a sudden and individual choice of\n it.\n\n If the prevailing desires of that which is evil, be the only impotency\n of the state of death in sin, and at the same time the only guilt of\n the party; this inability and guilt are concomitant, and always in\n exact proportion to each other; or rather may be considered as the\n same thing, under different aspects and names: it results therefore\n that as certainly as vice is not virtue, the impotency to good of the\n unrenewed man, is no excuse for his guilt.\n\n\n\n\n Quest. XXVIII., XXIX.\n\n\n QUEST. XXVIII. _What are the punishments of sin in this world?_\n\n ANSW. The punishments of sin in this world, are either inward as\n blindness of mind, a reprobate sense, strong delusions, hardness of\n heart, horror of conscience, and vile affections; or outward, as the\n curse of God upon the creatures for our sakes, and all other evils\n that befall us in our bodies, names, estates, relations, and\n employments, together with death itself.\n\n QUEST. XXIX. _What are the punishments of sin in the world to come?_\n\n ANSW. The punishments of sin in the world to come, are everlasting\n separation from the comfortable presence of God, and most grievous\n torments in soul and body, without intermission, in hell-fire for\n ever.\n\nI. In the former of these answers, we have an account of those\npunishments which sin exposes men to in this world. These are\ndistinguished as being either inward or outward, personal or relative;\nof which, those that are styled _outward_, which more especially respect\nour condition in the world, as we are liable to many adverse\ndispensations of providence therein, and are generally reckoned, by\nsinners, the greatest, as they are most sensible while they groan under\nthe many evils and miseries which befall them, in their bodies, names,\nestates, relations, and employments, and they end in death, the most\nformidable of all evils; though, in reality, the punishments of sin,\nwhich are styled _inward_, such as blindness of mind, hardness of heart,\n&c. how little soever they are regarded by those who fall under them, by\nreason of that stupidity, which is the natural consequence thereof: yet\nthey are, by far, the greatest and most dreaded by all, who truly fear\nGod, and see things in a just light being duly affected with that which\nwould render them most miserable in the end.\n\nHere we shall consider,\n\n_First_, Those punishments that are called inward, which respect either\nthe understanding, will, conscience, or affections. Accordingly,\n\n1. We are said to be exposed to blindness of mind: This the apostle\ndescribes in a most moving way, when he speaks of the _Gentiles, as\nwalking in the vanity of their mind, having the understanding darkened,\nbeing alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance that is in\nthem, because of the blindness of their heart_, Eph. iv. 17, 18.\nIgnorance and error are defects of the understanding, whereby it is not\nable to find out, nor desirous to enquire after the way of truth and\npeace; and accordingly the apostle says, _The way of peace have they not\nknown_, Rom. iii. 17. and by reason hereof, we are naturally inclined to\ndeny those doctrines, which are of the greatest importance, namely, such\nas more immediately concern the glory of God, and our own salvation.\nThis ignorance is certainly most dangerous, and cannot be exempted from\nthe charge of sin, much more when we are judicially left to it, as a\npunishment for other sins committed by us.\n\n2. Another punishment of sin, mentioned in this answer, is strong\ndelusion, which is the consequence of the former. This is taken from the\napostle\u2019s words, _For this cause God shall send them strong delusion,\nthat they should believe a lie_, 2 Thess. ii. 11. the meaning of which\nis nothing else but this, that God suffers them, who receive not the\nlove of the truth, but take pleasure in unrighteousness, to be deluded,\nby denying them that spiritual and saving illumination, which would have\neffectually prevented it. Now, that we may consider what the apostle\nmeans by these _strong delusions_, we may observe, that every error, or\nmistake in lesser matters of religion, is not intended hereby; for then\nfew or none, would be exempted from this judgment; but it includes in it\na person\u2019s entertaining the most abominable absurdities in matters of\nreligion, which are contrary to the divine perfections, and the whole\ntenor of scripture, and subversive of those truths, which are of the\ngreatest importance; or, when persons pretend to revelations, or are\nturned away from the truth by giving credit to the amusements of signs,\nand lying wonders; with which Antichrist is said to come, _after the\nworking of Satan_; and the consequence hereof is, that _they believe a\nlye_, which they suppose to be confirmed hereby.\n\nErrors, in matter of religion, are sometimes invincible and unavoidable,\nfor want of objective light, or scripture-revelation, as in the Heathen,\nMahometans, and others, who through the disadvantages and prejudices of\neducation, are estranged from the truth: but even this in some respects,\nmay be said to be judicial; for, though such do not sin against the\ngospel-light, yet they are guilty of other sins, which justly provoke\nGod to leave them in this state of darkness and ignorance. But the\npunishment of sin, when God gives men up to this judgment, is more\nvisible in those, who have had the advantages of education, above\nothers, and have had early instructions in the doctrines of the gospel;\nyet, by degrees, they are turned aside from, and have denied them, and\nso _forsaken the guide of their youth_, Prov. ii. 17. These sometimes\ncall those sentiments about religious matters, which once they received,\nimplicit faith, and please themselves with their new schemes of\ndoctrine, looking, as they call it, with pity, or, I might rather say,\ndisdain, on others, who are not disentangled from their fetters, or have\nnot shook off the prejudices of education, nor arrived to so free and\ngenerous a way of thinking, as they pretend to have done. But how much\nsoever they may glory in it, it is a sad instance of God\u2019s giving them\nup, in a judicial way, to the vanity and delusion of their minds; and\naccordingly they believe that to be a truth, which others can prove to\nbe a lie, and which they themselves once thought so. Now this appears to\nbe a punishment of sin, in that the gospel, which once they professed to\nbelieve, had not that effect, or tendency, as it ought, to subdue their\nlusts and corruptions; but they rebelled against the light, and were\nunder the power of presumptuous sins: their understanding, and talents\nof reasoning, have been enlarged, and, at the same time, the pride and\nvanity of their minds hath not been subdued, and mortified, by the grace\nof God; whereupon, they have been given up first to question, then to\ndeny, and afterwards to oppose, and, in the most profane and invidious\nmanner, to ridicule those sacred and important truths, which they once\nreceived. This is a sad instance of the punishment of sin; and the use\nthat I would make of it, may be in the following inferences.\n\n(1.) That we ought not to be content with a bare speculative knowledge\nof divine truths, but should endeavour to improve them, to promote\npractical godliness, as they have a tendency to do in all those, who, as\nthe apostle saith, _have so learned Christ_, as that they have been\n_taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus_, Eph. iv. 21.\n\n(2.) We ought not to content ourselves with an implicit faith, or\nbelieve the doctrines of the gospel, merely because they have been\nreceived by wise and good men, in former or later ages, but should be\nable to render a reason of the faith and hope that is in us, as built\nupon clear scripture evidence; so, on the other hand, we must take heed\nthat we do not despise the many testimonies which God\u2019s people have\ngiven to the truth, or forsake the footsteps of the flock, as though God\nhad left his servants to delusions, or groundless doctrines, and there\nwere no light in the world, or the church, till those, who have\nstudiously endeavoured to overthrow the faith delivered to, and\nmaintained by the saints, brought in that which they, with\nvain-boasting, call new light, into it.\n\n(3.) Let us strive against the pride of our understanding, which\noftentimes tempts us to disbelieve any doctrine which we cannot fully\naccount for, by our shallow methods of reasoning, as though we were the\nonly men that knew any thing; and, as Job says, _Wisdom must die with\nus_, Job xii. 2.\n\n(4.) If we are in doubt concerning any important truth, let us apply\nourselves, by faith and prayer, to Christ, the great prophet of his\nchurch, who has promised his Spirit to lead his people into all\nnecessary truth, to establish them in, and to keep them from being\nturned aside from it, by every wind of doctrine, through the management\nand sophistry of those who lie in wait to deceive. And to this we may\nadd, that we ought to bless God for, and to make a right use of the\nlabours of others, who have not only been led into the knowledge of the\ngospel themselves, but have taken a great deal of pains, and that with\ngood success, to establish the faith of others therein.\n\n(5.) If we have attained to a settled knowledge of the truth, and, more\nespecially, if we have been blessed with a spiritual and practical\ndiscerning thereof, let us bless God for it, and endeavour to improve it\nto the best purposes, which will be a preservative against this sore\njudgment of being given up to the blindness of our minds, or strong\ndelusions, and thereby to forsake our first faith.\n\n3. Another punishment of sin, which more especially respects the will,\nis hardness of heart, and a reprobate sense, when men are given up to\nthe perverseness and obstinacy of their natures, so that they are\nfixedly resolved to continue in sin, whatever be the consequence\nthereof, when they cannot bear reproof for, and refuse to be reclaimed\nfrom it, whatever methods are used in order thereunto. Thus the prophet\nspeaks, concerning a people, which had had forewarnings by sore\njudgments, and were, at that time, under sad rebukes of providence; yet\nGod says, concerning them, _They will not hearken unto me; for all the\nhouse of Israel are impudent and hard-hearted_, Ezek. iii. 7. and the\napostle speaks of some, who _have their consciences seared with a hot\niron_, 1 Tim. iv. 2. and others, who are described, as _sinning\nwilfully_, Heb. v. 26. that is, resolutely, being head-strong, and\ndetermined to persist therein; and are as the man described in Job, _Who\nstretcheth out his hand against God, and strengtheneth himself against\nthe Almighty; he runneth upon him, even upon his neck, upon the thick\nbosses of his bucklers_, Job xv. 25. Thus corrupt nature expresses its\nenmity and opposition to God; and, as sinners are suffered to go on in\nthis way, it may well be reckoned a punishment of sin, or an instance of\nGod\u2019s judicial hand against them for it. This hardness of heart is\nsometimes compared to a _stone_, Ezek. xxxvi. 26. or a _rock_, Jer.\nxxiii. 19. or an _adamant_, which is hardly broken with a hammer, Zech.\nvii. 12. or an _iron sinew_, and their _brow_ is said to be as _brass_,\nIsa. xlviii. 4. and sometimes they are compared to _a swift dromedary,\ntraversing her ways; or the wild ass, used to the wilderness, that\nsnuffeth up the wind at her pleasure_, Jer. ii. 23, 24. _and the bullock\nunaccustomed to the yoke_, Jer. xxxi. 18. _or to the deaf adder, that\nstoppeth her ears; that will not hearken to the voice of the charmers,\ncharming never so wisely_, Psal. lviii. 4, 5. This stupidity of the\nheart of man is so great, that it inclines him to go on in a course of\nrebellion against God, and, at the same time, to conclude all things to\nbe well; whereas, this is the most dangerous symptom, and a visible\ninstance of God\u2019s judicial hand, as a punishment of sin in this life.\nThere are several instances, in which this hardness of heart discovers\nitself; as,\n\n(1.) When men are not afraid of God\u2019s judgments threatened, nor regard\nthe warnings given thereof before-hand, or when they refuse to humble\nthemselves under them, as God says to Pharaoh, _How long wilt thou\nrefuse to humble thyself before me?_ Exod. x. 3.\n\n(2.) When they stifle, and do not regard those convictions of\nconscience, which they sometimes have; and, though they know that what\nthey do is sinful, and displeasing to God, yet they break through all\nthose fences, which should have prevented their committing it, as the\napostle speaks of some, _Who knowing the judgment of God, that they who\ncommit such things, are worthy death; not only do the same, but have\npleasure in them that do them_, Rom. i. 32.\n\n(3.) Men may be said to be hardened in sin, when they do not mourn for,\nor repent of it, after they have committed it: but, on the other hand,\nendeavour to conceal, extenuate, and plead for it, rather than to\nforsake it. And here we may take occasion to enquire,\n\n[1.] What are those sins which more especially lead to this judgment of\nhardness of heart. These are,\n\n_1st_, A neglect of ordinances, such as the word preached, as though we\ncounted it an indifferent matter, whether we wait at wisdom\u2019s gate, or\nno, or make a visible profession of subjection to Christ, and desire of\ncommunion with him herein; and particularly when we live in the constant\nneglect of secret prayer: thus the hardened sinner is described, when it\nis said, _Yea, thou castest off fear, and restrainest prayer before\nGod_, Job xv. 4.\n\n_2dly_, Another sin leading to it, is, a person\u2019s delighting in, or\nassociating himself with such companions, as are empty and vain, express\nan enmity to the power of godliness, and frequently make things sacred,\nthe subject of their wit and ridicule, choosing such for his\nbosom-friends, who cannot bear to converse about divine things, but\nrather depreciate, or cast contempt upon them; such an one is called, _A\ncompanion of fools_, and is opposed to those that _walk with wise men,\nwho shall be wise_, Prov. xiii. 20. and there is no method which will\nhave a more direct tendency to harden the heart, or root out any of the\nremains of serious religion, than this.\n\n_3dly_, A shunning faithful reproof, or concluding those our enemies,\nwho are, in this respect, our best friends. He that cannot bear to be\ntold of his crimes, by others, will, in a little while, cease to be a\nreprover to himself, and hereby will be exposed to this judgment of\nhardness of heart.\n\n_4thly_, Our venturing on the occasions of sin, or committing it\npresumptuously, without considering the heinous aggravations thereof, or\nthe danger that will ensue to us thereby; these things will certainly\nbring on us a very great degree of hardness of heart.\n\nBut, since there are some who are afraid of falling under this judgment,\nand are ready to complain, that the hardness, which they find in their\nown hearts, is of a judicial nature; this leads us to enquire,\n\n[2.] What is the difference between that hardness of heart, which\nbelievers often complain of, and judicial hardness, which is considered,\nin this answer, as a punishment of sin. There is nothing that a believer\nmore complains of, than the hardness and impenitency of his heart, its\nlukewarmness and stupidity under the ordinances; and there is nothing\nthat he more desires, than to have this redressed, and is sometimes not\nwithout a degree of fear, lest he should be given up to judicial\nhardness; and therefore, to prevent discouragements of this nature, let\nit be considered,\n\n(1.) That judicial hardness is very seldom perceived, and never\nlamented; a broken and a contrite heart is the least thing that such\ndesire: But it is otherwise with believers; for, as it is said of\nHezekiah, that _he was humbled for the pride of his heart_, 2 Chron.\nxxxii. 26. so all they, who have the truth of grace, and none but such,\nare exceedingly grieved for the hardness of their heart, which is an\nargument that it is not judicial, how much soever it be, in common with\nevery sin, the result of the corruption of nature, and the imperfection\nof this present state.\n\n(2.) Judicial hardness is perpetual; or, if ever there be any remorse,\nor relenting, or the soul is distressed, by reason of its guilt, or the\nprevalency of sin, it is only at such times when he is under some\noutward afflictions, or filled with a dread of the wrath of God; and, as\nthis wears off, or abates, his stupidity returns as much, or more, than\never: Thus it was with Pharaoh, when he was affrighted with the mighty\nthundering and hail, with which he was plagued, he _sent for Moses and\nAaron, and said unto them, I have sinned; the Lord is righteous, and I\nand my people are wicked_, Exod. ix. 27. but, when the plague was\nremoved, it is said, that _he sinned yet more, and hardened his heart_.\nBut it is otherwise with a believer; for sometimes, when no adverse\ndispensations, with respect to his outward circumstances in the world,\ntrouble him, yet he is full of complaints, and greatly afflicted, that\nhis heart is no more affected in holy duties, or inflamed with love to\nGod, or zeal for his glory, or that he cannot delight in him as he\nwould, or obtain a compleat victory over in-dwelling sin, which is his\nconstant burden; and, whenever he has a degree of tenderness, or\nbrokenness of heart, under a sense of sin, it is not barely the fear\nthat he has of the wrath of God, as a sin-revenging judge, or the\ndreadful consequences of sin committed, that occasion it, but a due\nsense of that ingratitude and disingenuity, which there is in every act\nof rebellion against him, who has laid them under such inexpressible\nobligations to obedience.\n\n(3.) Judicial hardness is attended with a total neglect of all holy\nduties, more especially those that are secret; but that hardness of\nheart which a believer complains of, though it occasions his going on\nvery uncomfortably in duty, yet it rather puts him upon, than drives him\nfrom it.\n\n(4.) When a person is judicially hardened, he makes use of indirect and\nunwarrantable methods to maintain that false peace, which he thinks\nhimself happy in the enjoyment of; that, which he betakes himself to,\ndeserves no better character than a refuge of lies; and the peace he\nrejoices in, deserves no better a name than stupidity: but a believer,\nwhen complaining of the hardness of his heart, cannot take up with any\nthing short of Christ, and his righteousness; and it is his presence\nthat gives him peace; and he always desires that faith may accompany his\nrepentance, that so, whenever he mourns for sin, the comfortable sense\nof his interest in him, may afford him a solid and lasting peace, which\nis vastly different from that stupidity and hardness of heart, which is\na punishment of sin.\n\nThere is another expression in this answer, which denotes little more\nthan a greater degree of judicial hardness, when it is styled, _A\nreprobate sense_, or, as the apostle calls it, _A reprobate mind_, Rom.\ni. 28. which God is said to have given them up to, _who did not like to\nretain him in their knowledge_; the meaning of which is, that persons,\nby a course of sin, render their hearts so hard, their wills so\nobstinate and depraved, as well as their understandings so dark and\ndefiled, that they hardly retain those notices of good and evil, which\nare enstamped on the nature of man, and, at some times, have a tendency\nto check for, and restrain from sin, till they are entirely lost, and\nextinguished by the prevalency of corrupt nature, and a continued course\nof presumptuous sins; and, as the result hereof, they extenuate and\nexcuse the greatest abominations: Thus Ephraim is represented, as\nsaying, _In all my labours, they shall find none iniquity in me that\nwere sin_, Hos. xii. 8. whereas God says in a following verse, that\n_they provoked him to anger most bitterly_, ver. 14. and, after this,\nthey entertain favourable thoughts of the vilest actions, as some are\nrepresented doing, _Who call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness\nfor light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet\nfor bitter_, Isa. v. 20.\n\n4. The next spiritual judgment mentioned in this answer, as a punishment\nfor sin, is a person\u2019s being given up to _vile affections_. This God is\nsaid to have done, to those whom the apostle describes, as _giving\nthemselves over to the committing of those sins_, which are contrary to\nnature, Rom. i. 26. such as all men generally abhor, who do not abandon\nthemselves to the most notorious crimes: This is a contracting that\nguilt, which is repugnant to those natural ideas of virtue and vice,\nwhich even an unregenerate man, who has not arrived to this degree of\nimpiety, cannot but abhor. These are such as are not to be named among\nChristians, or thought of, without the utmost regret, and an afflictive\nsense of the degeneracy of human nature.\n\n5. The last thing mentioned in this answer, in which the inward\npunishment of sin, in this life, consists, is, _Horror of conscience_.\nUnder the foregoing instances of spiritual judgments, conscience seemed\nto be asleep, but now it is awakened, and that by the immediate hand of\nGod, and this is attended with a dread of his wrath falling upon it:\nhorror and despair are the result hereof; _The arrows of the Almighty\nare within him, the poison whereof drinketh up his spirit; the terrors\nof God do set themselves in array against him_, Job vi. 4. and, _Terrors\ntake hold on him as waters; a tempest stealeth him away in the night.\nThe east wind carrieth him away, and he departeth; and, as a storm,\nhurleth him out of his place. For God shall cast upon him, and not\nspare; he would fain flee out of his hand_, chap. xxvii. 20-22.\n\nThis differs from those doubts and fears, which are common to believers,\ninasmuch as it is attended with despair, and a dreadful view of God, as\na God _to whom vengeance belongeth_, and is attended, as the apostle\nsays, _with a certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery\nindignation, which shall devour the adversaries_, Heb. x. 27. Before\nthis, he took a great deal of pains to stifle convictions of conscience,\nbut now he would fain do it, but cannot; which is a sad instance of the\nwrath of God pouring forth gall and wormwood into it, when he says, to\nuse the prophet\u2019s words, _Thine own wickedness shall correct thee, and\nthy backslidings shall reprove thee_, Jer. ii. 19.\n\nBut, now we are speaking concerning horror of conscience, we must take\nheed, lest we give occasion to doubting believers, who are under great\ndistress of soul, through a sense of sin, to apply what has been said,\nto themselves, for their farther discouragement, and conclude, that this\nis a judicial act of God, and a certain evidence, that they have not the\ntruth of grace: Therefore we may observe, that there is a difference\nbetween this horror of conscience, which we have been describing, and\nthat distress of soul, which believers are often liable to, in three\nrespects.\n\n(1.) The former, under horror of conscience, flee from God, as from an\nenemy, and desire only to be delivered from his wrath, and not from sin,\nthe occasion of it; whereas the believer desires nothing so much, as\nthat his iniquity, which is the occasion of it, may be subdued and\nforgiven, and that he may have that communion with God which he is\ndestitute of; and, in order thereunto, he constantly desires to draw\nnigh to him in ordinances, and, if he cannot enjoy him he mourns after\nhim: Thus the Psalmist complaineth, as one in the utmost degree of\ndistress, _Thy wrath lieth hard upon me, and thou hast afflicted me with\nall thy waves_, Psal. lxxxviii. 7. yet he says, _Unto thee have I cried,\nO Lord, and in the morning shall my prayer prevent thee_, ver. 13.\n\n(2.) The one reproaches God, and entertains unworthy thoughts of him, as\nthough he were severe, cruel, and unjust to him; whereas the other, with\nan humble and penitent frame of spirit, complains only of himself,\nacknowledges that there is no unrighteousness with God, and lays all the\nblame to his own iniquity.\n\n(3.) Horror of conscience, when it is judicial, seldom continues any\nlonger, than while a person is under some outward afflictive\ndispensation of providence, under which sin is increased, and the\nremoval thereof leaves him as stupid as he was before: whereas it is\notherwise with a believer; for the removal of God\u2019s afflicting hand, as\nto outward troubles, will not afford him any remedy against his fears,\nunless sin be mortified, and God is pleased to lift up the light of his\ncountenance upon him, and give him joy and peace in believing.\n\n_Secondly_, Having considered the _inward_ punishments of sin in this\nlife we are now to speak something concerning those, which, in this\nanswer, are styled _outward_, of which some are the immediate\nconsequence of the first entrance of sin into the world, and others are\nincreased by the frequent commission thereof; the former includes in it\nthe curse of God upon the creature for our sakes, and our liableness to\ndeath; the latter respects those various other evils that befal us, of\nwhich some are personal, and others relative; accordingly, many evils\nare said to befal us, in our bodies, names, estates, relations, and\nemployments.\n\n1. The curse of God was denounced against the creatures, immediately\nafter man\u2019s apostasy from him: This is, in part, contained in the\nthreatning, _Cursed be the ground for thy sake. Thorns and thistles\nshall it bring forth to thee; by the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat\nbread, till thou return to the ground_, Gen. iii. 17-19. and it is very\nelegantly described by the apostle, who speaks of[83] _the creature as\nsubject to vanity, not willingly but by reason of him, who hath\nsubjected the same in hope_;[84] and of _the whole creation\u2019s groaning\nand travelling in pain together until now_, Rom. viii. 20-22. the\ngeneral scope and design whereof seems to be this, that it retains the\nvisible marks of the curse of God, which followed upon man\u2019s sin. This I\nrather think to be the sense thereof, than to suppose, as some do, that\n_the creature_, here spoken of, is the Gentile world, and _the vanity_,\nwhich they were subject to, that idolatry which they were universally\naddicted to; for that does not seem to agree with what the apostle says,\nwhen he supposes that their subjection to this vanity was not\n_willingly_, neither can it well be called _the bondage of corruption_.\nBut if, on the other hand, we take it for that part of the creation,\nwhich was more immediately designed for the use of man, being abused,\nand so subject to that vanity, which is the consequence of his fall,\nthis agrees very well with its being _not willingly_; for he is speaking\nhere of creatures not endowed with understanding and will, yet abused by\nthose that are, and therefore their subjection to man\u2019s vanity, is not\nso much from themselves, as from man\u2019s sin; and then he speaks of the\nliableness of all these things to corruption, as the world is decaying\nand growing toward a dissolution. How far this curse of God, on the\ncreature, extended itself, whether only to this lower world, or to the\nheavenly bodies themselves, such as the sun, moon, and stars, I pretend\nnot to determine; for I desire not to extend my conjectures beyond the\nline of scripture, which speaks of _the earth, as cursed for man\u2019s\nsake_; and how far the other parts of nature, are liable to corruption,\nor inclined towards a dissolution, it is hard to say. All that I shall\nadd, on this head, is, that, when this is called a punishment, which is\nconsequent on man\u2019s sin, it more especially respects man, who is the\nonly subject of punishment in this world: inanimate creatures are the\nmatter, in which he is punished, but he alone is the subject thereof.\n\n2. There are other evils that befal us, in which we are more immediately\nconcerned, and these are either personal or relative; and, accordingly,\n\n(1.) We are liable to bodily diseases, which are a continual weakness,\nor decay of nature; and afterwards to death, which is the dissolution of\nthe frame thereof. All the pains and disorders of nature, whereby our\nhealth is impaired, and our passage, through this world, rendered\nuneasy, are the consequence of our sinful and fallen state, and, in that\nrespect, are sometimes styled, a punishment of sin: thus, when our\nSaviour healed the man that was sick of the palsy, he intimates, that\nhis sickness was the consequence of sin, by the mode of expression used,\n_Thy sins are forgiven thee_, Mat. ix. 2. and the Psalmist speaks of\nGod\u2019s _pardoning the iniquities of his people, and healing all their\ndiseases_, Psal. ciii. 3. at the same time; in this respect, they are\nstyled, in a more large sense, a punishment of sin: but, when they have\na mixture of the wrath of God in them, and are not rendered subservient\nto our good, nor included among those dispensations, which are called\nfatherly chastisements, as they are not in those that are in an\nunjustified state, they are, in a more proper sense, punishments of sin.\nThus the diseases that God brought on the Egyptians, are reckoned among\nthe plagues of Egypt, and so were a visible instance of the vindictive\njustice of God. The same thing may be said of death, which is the\ndissolution of the frame of nature, which is a consequence of sin, in\nall, and in the most proper sense, a punishment of sin, in those, who\nare liable not only to the stroke, but the sting of death, and thereby\nare brought under the power of the second death.\n\n(2.) There are many evils that befal us in our names, when we meet with\nreproaches and injurious treatment, as to what concerns our character in\nthe world, from those who act as though their tongues were their own,\nand they were not accountable to God, for those slanders and revilings,\nwhich they load us with. We are, in this case, very ready to complain of\nthe injustice done us, by their endeavouring to deprive us of that,\nwhich is equally valuable with our lives: but we ought to consider, that\nsin is the cause of all this, and God\u2019s suffering them thus to treat us,\nand thereby to hinder our usefulness in the world, must be reckoned a\npunishment of sin.\n\n(3.) There are other evils that befal us in our secular concerns,\nnamely, our estates and employments in the world, which are entirely at\nthe disposal of providence, which renders us rich, or poor, succeeds, or\nblasts, our lawful undertakings. This God may do, out of his mere\nsovereignty, without giving an account of his matters to any one. But\nyet, when we meet with nothing but disappointments, or want of success\nin business, and whatever diligence, or industry, we use, appears to be\nto no purpose, and adverse providences, like a torrent, sweep away all\nthat we have in the world, and poverty comes upon us, like an armed man,\nthis is to be reckoned no other than a punishment of sin.\n\n(4.) There are other evils, which we are exposed to, in our relations,\nby which we understand, the wickedness of those who are nearly related\nto us, or the steps they take to ruin themselves, and cast a blemish on\nthe whole family to which they belong. The bonds of nature, and that\naffection, which is the result thereof, render this very afflictive: and\nespecially when they, who are related to us, attempt any thing against\nus to our prejudice, this is a circumstance that sharpeneth the edge of\nthe affliction. And, as it is a sin in them, which is contrary to the\ndictates of nature; so sometimes we may reckon it a punishment which we\nare liable to, as the consequence of our sin in general. But, if we have\noccasion to reflect on our former conversation, as not having filled up\nevery relation with those respective duties, that it engages to; if we\nhave been undutiful to our parents, or unfaithful servants to our\nmasters, or broke the bonds of civil society, by betraying or deserting\nour friends, and setting aside all those obligations which they have\nlaid us under; this oftentimes exposes us to afflictive evils of the\nlike nature, whereby the affliction we meet with in others, appears to\nbe a punishment of our own sin. Thus concerning the punishment of sin in\nthis life; from whence we may make the following remarks.\n\n1. Whatever evils we are exposed to in this world, we ought to be very\nearnest with God, that he would not give us up to spiritual judgments.\nThe punishments of sin, which are outward, may be alleviated and\nsweetened with a sense of God\u2019s love, and made subservient to our\nspiritual and eternal advantage. But blindness of mind, hardness of\nheart, and those other evils, which tend to vitiate and defile the soul,\nwhich have in them the formal nature of punishment, these are to be\ndreaded like hell; and, as we are to be importunate with God to prevent\nthem, so we ought to watch against those sins that lead to them; and\ntherefore let us take heed of being insensible, or stupid, under any\nafflictive evils, as neglecting to hear the voice of God, who speaks by\nthem, or refusing to receive instruction by correction.\n\n2. Let us not be too much dejected, or sink under those outward\nafflictive providences, which we are liable to; for, though they be the\nconsequence of sin, yet, if we have ground to conclude, by faith, that\nour sins are forgiven, they are not to be reckoned the stroke of\njustice, demanding satisfaction, and resolving never to remove its hand\nfrom us, till we are consumed thereby; since believers often experience,\nwhat the prophet prays for, that God _in wrath remembers mercy_, Hab.\niii. 2.\n\n3. Let us take heed that we do not ascribe afflictive providences to\nchance, or content ourselves with a bare reflection on them, as the\ncommon lot of man in this world, who is _born to trouble as the sparks\nfly upwards_: For, this we may do, and not be humbled for that sin,\nwhich they are designed to bring to remembrance, as they are to be\nreckoned a punishment thereof.\n\n4. Let us not murmur, or quarrel with God, as though he dealt hardly\nwith us, in sending afflictive evils; but rather let us bless him, how\nheavy soever they appear to be, that they are not extreme, but\nmitigated, and have in them a great mixture of mercy. Thus God says,\nconcerning the evils that he had brought upon Israel, that _in measure\nhe would debate with them, who stayeth his rough wind in the day of the\neast wind: and by this shall the iniquity of Jacob be purged_, Isa.\nxxvii. 8, 9. and, by this means, God not only afflicts us less than our\niniquities deserve, but brings good to us thereby in the end. If the\nguilt of sin is taken away, we have ground to conclude, that all these\nthings _shall work together for good_, as he has promised they shall, to\nthose that _love him_. This leads us to consider,\n\nII. The punishment of sin in the world to come. Though the wrath of God\nbe revealed, in many instances, in a very terrible manner, as a\npunishment of sin in this life, yet there is a punishment unspeakably\ngreater, which sinners are liable to, in the world to come. That this\nmay appear, let us consider the following propositions.\n\n1. That the soul exists after its separation from the body by death;\nwhich is evident, from the immateriality thereof, and its being of a\ndifferent nature from the body. This was known and proved by the light\nof nature; so that the very heathen, who had no other light than that to\nguide them, discover some knowledge of it. But this is more plain from\nscripture; as when it is said, _Fear not them which kill the body, but\nare not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him, which is able to\ndestroy both soul and body in hell_, Matt. x. 28.\n\n2. The soul thus existing, though separate from its body, must be\nsupposed to retain those powers and capacities it had, while united to\nit, which are proper to it, as a spirit, and particularly as the subject\nof moral government; and those powers and capacities may also be\nsupposed to be in it in a greater degree, when dislodged from the body,\nwhich is a great hindrance to it in its actings, as every one sensibly\nexperiences; therefore it follows,\n\n3. That it cannot but be happy, or miserable, in another world; for\nthere is no middle state between these two. This is farther evident from\nwhat was observed in the last proposition, concerning the continuance\nand increase of its powers and faculties, whereby it is rendered more\ncapable thereof, than it is now.\n\n4. If it goes out of this world, under the weight and guilt of sin upon\nit, it must retain that guilt, because there is no sacrifice for sin,\nextending itself to that world; no mediator, no gospel, or means of\ngrace; no promises of, or way to obtain forgiveness; therefore,\n\n5. Wicked men, whose sins are not forgiven in this world, are the\nsubjects of punishment in the other.\n\n6. This punishment cannot be castigatory, or paternal, or consistent\nwith the special love of God, or, for their advantage, as the\npunishments of the sins of believers are in this world, since it is\nalways expressed as the stroke of vindictive justice, demanding\nsatisfaction for sins committed.\n\n7. Some are happy in a future state, namely, those who are justified;\nfor, _whom he justified, them he also glorified_, Rom. viii. 30. But\nthis is not the privilege of all; therefore they who are not justified,\nor whose sins are not pardoned, are the subjects of the punishment of\nsin in the world to come. This is a very awful subject, and should be\nduly improved, to awaken our fears, and put us upon using those means,\nwhich God has ordained to escape it. But I shall not, in this place,\nenlarge upon it, since it is particularly insisted on under another\nanswer,[85] and therefore I shall only observe, that, as sin is\nobjectively infinite, as being against an infinite God, it deserves\neternal punishment. And therefore all the punishments inflicted on\nsinners, in this world are not proportioned to it; and consequently\nthere are vials of wrath, reserved in store, to be poured on those, who\nwilfully and obstinately persist in their rebellion against God, and the\npunishment will be agreeable to the nature of the crime; so that as sin\nis a separation of the heart and affections from God, and contains in it\na disinclination to converse with him, as well as unmeetness for it, the\npunishment thereof will consist in a separation from his comfortable\npresence, and that is to be separated from the fountain of blessedness,\nwhich must render the soul beyond expression, miserable. This is\ngenerally called a punishment of loss; and there is besides it, a\npunishment of sense, expressed by those grievous torments, which are to\nbe endured in soul and body; the soul, in a moral sense, may be said to\nbe capable of pain, as it has an afflictive sensation of those miseries\nwhich it endures; and the body is so in a natural sense, which, as it\nhas been a partner with the soul in sinning, must likewise be so in\nsuffering. And this farther appears inasmuch as the body endures several\npains and evils, as punishments of sin in this life, which shall be\ncontinued, and increased in another. This is usually expressed by that\npunishment, which is most terrible, namely, of fire; and the place in\nwhich it is inflicted, is hell, and the duration thereof is to eternity.\nBut of these things elsewhere.[86]\n\nFootnote 83:\n\n \u03c7\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, means animal nature in man. The relief of the body is spoken\n of.\n\nFootnote 84:\n\n Ver. 20. is a parenthesis, except, \u201c_in hope_,\u201d \u201c_Waiteth &c. sons of\n God ... in hope that the creature, &c._\u201d\n\nFootnote 85:\n\n _See Quest._ lxxxix.\n\nFootnote 86:\n\n The faculties of the soul speak it made for eternity; particularly\n conscience points to a time of retribution. The same truth may be\n deduced from the holiness, justice, and even the goodness of God; from\n the moral agency of man; from the course of the conduct of men; and\n from the unequal administration of justice: but the solid and clear\n proofs are found in the word of God. How pitiable the condition of\n that man, who having spent his life without a view to a final account,\n has no other hope in the hour of death, except that which is founded\n upon the groundless supposition, that God will cease to be holy, just,\n and true; that he will change from his original purpose, subvert the\n order of his government, and surrender the demands of religion,\n conscience, and reason, to save the guilty in their sins.\n\n Humanity would lead us to entertain a secret wish, that the impenitent\n should be permitted to drop into non-existence, and that the demands\n of justice should be waved; but this sentiment is unadvised, and\n springs from an ignorance of the demerit of sin; defective views of\n the importance of rectitude in the administration of the divine\n government; from imperfect conceptions of God\u2019s perfections; from our\n own interest, or from a faulty sympathy for the undeserving. Existence\n is a blessing; but when prostituted to the dishonour of the Creator,\n the party will not be at liberty to throw it up when he chooses, and\n thus elude the demands of justice.\n\n The minds of the unrenewed are directed prevailingly to temporal\n things; a total separation from them, is, perhaps, the first sense of\n punishment which is felt. They have not in life sought eternal\n happiness, yet they generally have supposed it possible to be\n attained, or that mercy would bestow it. The discovery of their\n eternal separation from heaven, the society of the blessed, the\n beatific vision of God, from fulness of joys, and rivers of pleasures,\n will produce abject despair. This will be aggravated by the reflection\n that they might have been happy. The blessings of providence, the\n mercy of God in making provision for their recovery, the love and\n compassion of Christ, the means of grace, the invitations and warnings\n of the Gospel, all abused and lost, will augment their remorse to an\n inconceivable degree. The malice and horrors of their cursed society\n of fiends and damned spirits, will be another source of torment.\n\n Great as these distresses may be, the separate spirits are dreading\n greater evils. \u201c_Hast thou come to torment us before the time?_\u201d When\n the judgment has passed, \u201c_death_,\u201d the bodies which had been dead,\n \u201c_and hell_,\u201d the spirits which had been in Hades, \u201c_shall be cast\n into the lake of fire_.\u201d If their bodies shall be raised spiritual,\n incorruptible, and immortal, which is affirmed of the righteous; and\n seems probable, because the earth will be destroyed, and they will be\n associated with spirits, yet the sense of the pain, which arises from\n burning, may be given and continued in them by the application of\n fire, or even without it.\n\n But that which imbitters all their distresses in the highest degree,\n is, that they shall be eternal. The original words of the scripture\n expressive of their perpetuity, being unrestrained by any implied or\n expressed limitation, should be understood as when applied to Deity,\n or the happiness of the saints. The same perpetual duration is also\n shown by negation, which is the strongest language. \u201c_The worm dieth\n not, and the fire is not quenched_;\u201d it is \u201c_unquenchable fire_,\u201d and\n \u201c_their end_,\u201d (or final state,) \u201c_is to be burned_.\u201d We read of a sin\n which shall \u201c_not be forgiven_.\u201d \u201c_Not every one\u2014shall enter into the\n kingdom_;\u201d and where Christ is, they \u201c_cannot come_.\u201d They will \u201c_have\n judgment without mercy_.\u201d None of these things are true, if all men\n shall be saved.\n\n Perhaps justice required that these evils should be disclosed; but if\n they be unjust, it was improper to threaten them. Our aversion to them\n springs from our ignorance of the evil of sin. Nevertheless, the\n sacrifice of Christ, and the warnings of scripture, speak their\n extent; and the continuance of the damned in sin, establishes their\n certainty.\n\n\n\n\n Quest. XXX.\n\n\n QUEST. XXX. _Doth God leave all mankind to perish in the state of\n sin and misery?_\n\n ANSW. God will not leave all mankind to perish in the state of sin\n and misery, into which they fell by the breach of the first\n covenant, commonly called, the covenant of works; but of his mere\n love and mercy, delivereth his elect out of it, and bringeth them to\n an estate of salvation by the second covenant, commonly called the\n covenant of grace.\n\nHitherto we have considered man as made upright, and having many\nblessings in possession, and more in expectation, according to the tenor\nof the covenant he was under. We have also observed the first entrance\nof sin into the world, with all those miseries that attended it; and we\nare now led to speak of that inestimable display of divine love and\ngrace, which appears in our salvation, which is considered more\ngenerally in this answer; wherein there is,\n\nI. Something supposed, namely, that if God had left man in the state\ninto which he brought himself by sin, he would have perished for ever.\nHe was not only in danger of ruin and destruction, but sunk into it. He\nwas like a brand in the fire, that would soon have been consumed, had he\nnot been plucked out of it. His state was not only miserable, but\nhopeless, inasmuch as he could not think of any expedient how he might\nrecover himself. He was guilty, and no creature could make atonement for\nhim; separated from the comfortable presence of God, whose terrors made\nhim afraid, and whose hand was heavy upon him; neither could he apply\nhimself to any one, who would interpose or appear in his behalf, whereby\nhe might be restored to the enjoyment of those privileges, which he had\nforfeited and lost. What tongue can express, or heart be suitably\naffected with the misery of this condition! And this would have been our\ndeplorable case for ever, had we been left of God in our fallen state.\nBut we have, in the gospel, a door of salvation opened, or glad tidings\nproclaimed therein, to those who were sunk as low as hell, which is the\nonly spring and hope of comfort, to those who are afflicted with a sense\nof their sin and misery. Accordingly, it is farther observed,\n\nII. That God will not leave all mankind to perish in that state, but\ndesigned to deliver his elect out of it, and bring them into a state of\nsalvation. That God designed not to leave mankind in this miserable\ncondition, appears from the discovery he has made of the way of\nsalvation which was contained in that promise, which God gave to our\nfirst parents, respecting the _seed of the woman_, who was to break the\n_serpent\u2019s head_; or the Saviour\u2019s being _manifested that he might\ndestroy the works of the devil_; and all the promises contained in the\ngospel, are, as it were, a farther improvement on it, or a continued\ndeclaration of God\u2019s purpose relating to the salvation of his people.\nThe work of redemption wrought out by Christ, as God incarnate, was a\nwonderful discovery of this great truth, that God had a design to\nrecover and save lost sinners; and all the gifts and graces of the\nSpirit, by whom the redemption purchased by Christ, is applied, and that\njoy and peace, which they have in believing, which are, as it were, the\nfirst fruits of eternal life, these are all a convincing proof that God\ndetermined not to leave man to perish in his fallen state. And to this\nwe may add, that even the malice and rage of Satan, and all the\nendeavours used by him, to defeat this design, and the glorious victory\nwhich God enables his people to obtain over him, _who are made more than\nconquerors through him that loved them_; these are so many convincing\nproofs, that God designed not to leave man, in his ruined condition, but\nto make known to him the way of salvation; first, to make him meet for\nit, and then to bring him to the possession of it.\n\nSalvation is an inestimable privilege, containing in it all the\ningredients of blessedness, such as are adapted to the condition of\nmiserable sinners; and it is a very comprehensive one; which will\nappear, if we consider what we are hereby delivered from, and what we\nare possessed of. There is a great variety of blessings contained in the\nformer of these; as, we are saved from sin, namely, from the guilt\nthereof in justification, and from the dominion thereof in\nsanctification, and from that bondage we were liable to, whereby we were\nin perpetual dread of the wrath of God, desiring to fly from his\npresence, and naturally inclined to yield ourselves subjects and slaves\nto his greatest enemy: all these we are delivered from. And there are\nmany positive blessings and privileges, which we are made partakers of;\nsuch as, grace and peace begun here, and perfected in glory hereafter;\nand these are not only such as exceed our highest desert, but tend to\nmake us completely and eternally happy. Here we are to consider,\n\n1. The subjects of this privilege. Salvation is not extended to all\nmiserable creatures; for, fallen angels, who were the first that\nrebelled against God, were left to perish, without hope of salvation,\nbeing reserved for ever in chains under darkness. And as for fallen man,\nhow extensive soever the proclamation of salvation in the gospel is, as\nit is now preached to all nations, and all who sit under the sound\nthereof, are commanded and encouraged to press after it; yet this\nprivilege is applied only to those who were ordained to eternal life.\nThe purpose of God, relating hereunto, and the application thereof, are\njoined together in that golden chain of salvation, _Whom he\npredestinated, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also\njustified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified_, Rom. viii.\n30. But this has been more particularly considered elsewhere[87].\n\n2. Here is the only moving cause, or reason, why God bestows this great\nsalvation, or why he has designed to bring any of the sons of men to it;\nand that is his mere love and mercy. Salvation, whether considered in\nits first rise, in God\u2019s eternal purpose, or in the execution thereof in\nthe work of conversion and sanctification, as well as in the completing\nof it in glorification, is ascribed to the sovereign grace and mercy of\nGod. Are we _Chosen in Christ to be holy_, or _predestinated to the\nadoption of children by him?_ this is said to be _to the praise of the\nglory of his grace_, Eph. i. 4-6. And the apostle elsewhere, when\nresolving this great privilege of salvation, in all the branches of it,\nnamely, regeneration, renovation, and justification, into the same\noriginal cause and ground thereof, to wit, the kindness, love, and grace\nof God, excludes all those works of righteousness which we have done,\nfrom being the inducement, or moving cause leading to it, Tit. iii. 4-7.\nso that it was the grace of God that laid the foundation stone, and it\nis that that brings the work to perfection.\n\nTo make this farther appear, let it be considered, that salvation must\neither be of grace, or of debt; either the result of God\u2019s free favour\nto us, or it must proceed from some obligation, which he is laid under\nby us, to confer this privilege upon us. Now it is certain, that it\ncannot take its rise from any obligation that we can lay on him; for\nwhatever difference there is between the best of saints and the worst of\nsinners, it is from God, and not from the sinner himself. We have\nnothing but what _we first received_ from him, _of whom, and through\nwhom, and to whom are all things_, Rom. xi. 35, 36.\n\nMoreover, this salvation must be conferred, in such a way, as redounds\nto the glory of him, who is the author of it, whereby all the boasting\nin the creature is excluded, and therefore it cannot take its rise from\nany thing done by us; it is _not of works, lest any man should boast_,\nEph. ii. 9. And, indeed, this is contrary to the main design of the\ngospel, which is, that no flesh should glory in his presence. And the\ncircumstances in which those are, who are said to be the objects of\nsalvation, are such as argue it to be altogether of grace; for, whom did\nthe Son of Man come to seek and to save, but them that were lost? or, to\nwhom was the way of salvation discovered, but to those who were going\nastray from God, and were neither inclined to return to him, nor apply\nthemselves to any one, who might direct them how to regain his lost\nfavour? And, if they had, it would have been to no purpose; since no\ncreature could make known the way of salvation, any more than apply the\nblessings contained therein.\n\nWere man only to be considered as a creature, and so not properly the\nobject of salvation, which is no other than a lost sinner; or did he\nexpect nothing else but some effects of common goodness, or the\nblessings of nature, he could not expect them in a way of merit; for\nthat is contrary to the dependance of the creature on God; therefore the\nblessings of Providence must be considered as the result of his free\nfavour. And were man in a sinless state, and able to perform perfect\nobedience, as he was at first, his ability hereunto must be supposed to\nbe an unmerited favour; and accordingly the obedience performed would be\nno other than a just debt due to God, and therefore would afford him no\nplea, from any merit of condignity, for the conferring any privilege, as\na reward thereof: this therefore, must be the result of the divine\nfavour.\n\nBut, when we consider him as a sinner, he is altogether unable to do\nwhat is good; and therefore, if salvation were entirely to depend on our\nperforming obedience, so that any failure therein would deprive us of\nit, we should never attain it; for this obedience would be so imperfect,\nthat God could not, in honour, accept of it. But alas! fallen man is so\nfar from any disposition, or inclination to perform obedience, that his\nheart is naturally averse to it; _The carnal mind is enmity against God;\nfor it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be_, Rom.\nviii. 7. If therefore, such an one is saved, and that in such a way,\nthat God is pleased to love him, and manifest himself to him, it must be\na wonderful instance of divine grace, which no one, who has experienced\nit, can think on, but with admiration, especially when considering how\ndiscriminating it is; as one of Christ\u2019s disciples said unto him, _How\nis it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?_\nJohn xiv. 22.\n\n3. Having considered salvation, as designed for all the elect, we\nproceed to consider the means of their attaining it; or their being\nbrought into a state of salvation by the second covenant, commonly\ncalled the covenant of grace. As salvation is ascribed to the grace of\nGod; so it is an instance of condescending goodness, that our faith,\nrelating hereunto, should be confirmed by such a dispensation, as is\ngenerally styled a covenant. Thus David, speaking concerning it, says,\n_He hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things,\nand sure; for this is all my salvation, and all my desire_, 2 Sam.\nxxiii. 5. This covenant, as to what respects the parties concerned\ntherein, and the manner in which the grace of God is displayed in it,\ntogether with the various dispensations, or administrations thereof, is\nparticularly considered under the five following answers. The only\nthing, that remains to be insisted on in this, is its being called the\n_Second Covenant_, as opposed to the covenant of works, which is styled\nthe _First_. The covenant of works has been considered under a foregoing\nanswer[88]; and therefore all that I shall observe, concerning it, at\npresent, is, that though life was promised therein, as including all\nthose blessings, which were suited to the state of man in innocency, yet\nthere was no promise of salvation in it, which is the restoring of\nforfeited blessings, or a recovery from a state of death and ruin. In\nthis respect, the covenant of grace is opposed to it.\n\nAgain, though Adam was the head of that covenant, whose obedience, or\napostacy, would convey life or death to all his posterity, whom he\nrepresented, yet he stood not in the relation of a Mediator, or surety,\nto them, for that was inconsistent with the dispensation he was under,\nand is applicable to no other covenant, than that which we are\nconsidering, as thus opposed to it.\n\nMoreover, perfect obedience was demanded, as a condition of man\u2019s\nattaining life, and this he was thoroughly furnished to perform;\nwhereas, in the covenant of grace, if God should insist on our\nperforming perfect obedience, the condition would be in its own nature\nimpossible, and therefore we should hereby rather be excluded from, than\nbrought into a state of salvation; and whatever obedience we are engaged\nto perform, as expectants of salvation, this is entirely owing to the\ngrace of God, by which _we are what we are_, as well as attain to the\nblessings we hope for: Herein the covenant of works, and the covenant of\ngrace, differ.\n\nThe next thing that we are to observe, is, that the covenant of grace is\ncalled the _Second Covenant_; and this leads us to enquire, whether we\nhave any ground, from scripture, to conclude, that there are more\ncovenants than these two; or, at least, whether what we call the _Second\nCovenant_, or the covenant of grace, may not be subdivided into two\ncovenants; since the apostle seems to speak of two covenants made with\nfallen man, _viz._ one that was made with the Israelites, given from\nmount Sinai, which was designed to continue no longer than that\ndispensation they were under, lasted; and the other is, that which the\nchurch has been under, ever since the gospel dispensation was erected,\nwhich is to continue to the end of the world. These are described by\ntheir respective properties, in an allegorical way, and illustrated by a\nsimilitude, taken from two mountains, Sinai and Sion; and two persons,\nmentioned in scripture, Agar and Sarah: The former of these is said _to\ngender unto bondage_; the latter brings those, who are under it into a\nstate of liberty, Gal. iv. 24. _& seq._ and one of these covenants is\nsaid to be better than the other, and particularly called a new\ncovenant; the other is represented as _decaying, waxing old, and ready\nto vanish away_, Heb. viii. 6, 8, 13.\n\nMoreover, the apostle seems to speak of more covenants than one, made\nwith the Jewish church; for he says, that _to them pertaineth the\nadoption, and the glory, and the covenants_, Rom. ix. 4. &c. and\nelsewhere, speaking concerning the Gentiles, as _aliens from the\ncommonwealth of Israel_, he adds, that _they were also strangers from\nthe covenants of promise_, Eph. ii. 12. which seems to argue, that there\nwere more than two covenants with man; one with innocent man; the other,\nthe gospel-covenant, which we are under; and, besides these, there were\nother covenants, made with Israel, which seems to carry in it the\nappearance of an objection, to what was before observed, that there was,\nin reality, but two covenants, and that whenever we read of any covenant\nin scripture, it is reducible to one of them.\n\nThis may, without much difficulty, be accounted for, consistently\ntherewith, if we consider the sense of those scriptures above mentioned.\n\n_First_, As to those scriptures, that seem to speak of two distinct\ncovenants, made with fallen man, to wit, one with the Israelites, the\nother, that which we are under, they really intend nothing more than two\ndifferent dispensations of the covenant of grace; in which sense we are\nto understand the apostle, when he speaks of the two covenants, the\n_Old_ and the _New_, the _First_ and the _Second_: the covenant is the\nsame, though the dispensation of the grace of God therein, or the way of\nrevealing it to men, differs. But this will be more particularly\ninsisted on in those following answers, which respect the various\nadministrations of grace, under the Old and New Testament; therefore we\nproceed,\n\n_Secondly_, To enquire into the meaning of those other scriptures,\nbefore-mentioned, which seem to speak of more covenants than one, which\nthe Jewish nation was under. By the covenants there mentioned, the\napostle seems to refer to some different times, or periods of the\nchurch, before our Saviour\u2019s incarnation, of which some divines take\nnotice of four; in each of which, there was something new and distinct\nfrom the rest, in the dispensation of divine providence towards the\nchurch. The first of these took its rise from the promise which God gave\nto man, as soon as he fell, relating to that salvation, which was to be\nbrought about, in its proper time, by the seed of the woman. The second\nperiod of the church began after the flood, when God is said to have\nrevealed his covenant to Noah, which he _established between him and all\nflesh upon the earth_, Gen. ix. 17. A third remarkable period, or change\nof affairs in the church, was, when God called Abraham out of an\nidolatrous country, _to sojourn in the land of promise, as in a strange\ncountry_, at which time he established his covenant with him, promising\nto be a _God to him, and his seed_, and instituting _circumcision as a\ntoken thereof_, Gen. xvii. 7-11. upon which occasion, this particular\ndispensation thereof is called, _The covenant of circumcision_, Acts\nvii. 8. The fourth and last dispensation, or period, which more\nespecially respected the seed of Abraham, as increased to a great\nnation, is what we read of, soon after they were delivered from the\nEgyptian bondage, when God was pleased to separate that nation, as a\npeculiar people to himself, and sent Moses from mount Sinai, where he\nappeared to them, to demand their explicit consent to be his people;\nupon which occasion, when they had promised, that all that _the Lord had\nsaid, they would do and be obedient_, and a public and solemn _sacrifice\nwas offered_, and the people _sprinkled with the blood thereof_, it is\nsaid, _They saw God, and did eat and drink_, as a farther sign and\nratification of this dispensation of the covenant, Exod. xxiv. 1-11. and\nafterwards many statutes and ordinances were given them, containing\nthose laws, which God required of them, as a covenant people; and this\ncontinued till the gospel-dispensation, which succeeded it, was erected.\nThis seems to be the meaning of what the apostle speaks, in the\nscriptures before cited, when he says, that the church of the Jews had\nthe covenants, as intending nothing else thereby, but the dispensation\nof the covenant of grace, as subdivided into several periods, during the\nvarious ages of the church, from the fall of Adam to our recovery by\nChrist. Therefore, though those dispensations were various, yet whatever\nGod has transacted with man, in a federal way, may be considered under\ntwo general heads; the first called the covenant of works; the other,\nthe covenant of grace; the latter of which is to be farther considered,\nunder the following answers.\n\nFootnote 87:\n\n _See_ Vol. I. _Page 462._\n\nFootnote 88:\n\n _See Quest._ xx. _Page 70. Ante._\n\n\n\n\n Quest. XXXI.\n\n\n QUEST. XXXI. _With whom was the covenant of grace made?_\n\n ANSW. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam;\n and in him, with all the elect, as his seed.\n\nAs the covenant of grace is opposed to that which was made with Adam, as\nthe head of mankind, so it is considered in this answer, as made with\nthe second Adam, and, in him, with all his elect, who are described, by\nthe Psalmist, as a _seed that should serve him, which should be\naccounted to the Lord for a generation_, Psal. xxii. 30. and the prophet\nIsaiah, speaking of them, says, _He shall see his seed_, Isa. liii. 10.\nIn explaining this answer, we shall consider,\n\nI. What we are to understand by a covenant in general, and more\nparticularly how it is to be understood, as used in scripture. The word\ncommonly used in the Old Testament,[89] to signify a covenant, being\ntaken in several senses, may be better understood, by the application\nthereof, in those places, where we find it, than by enquiring into the\nsense of the root, from whence it is derived. Sometimes, indeed, it\nsignifies such a compact between two parties, as agrees with our common\nacceptation of the word, especially when applied to transactions between\nman and man; as in the covenant between Abraham, and those neighbouring\nprinces, that were _confederate with him_, where the same word is used,\nin Gen. xiv. 13, and in the covenant between Isaac and Abimelech,\nmentioned in Gen. xxvi. 28, 29. and in that between Jonathan and David,\nin 1 Sam. xx. 16, 17. in all which instances there was mutual\nstipulation, and re-stipulation, as there is in human covenants; and,\nfor this reason, some apply those ideas to the word, when it is used to\nsignify God\u2019s entering into covenant with man.\n\nBut there is another acceptation thereof when God is represented as\nmaking a covenant with man which is more agreeable to the divine\nperfections, and that infinite distance there is between him and us;\ntherefore we find in several places of scripture, that when God is said\nto make a covenant there is an intimation of some blessings which he\nwould bestow upon his people, without any idea of stipulation, or\nre-stipulation, annexed to it: thus we read, in Jer. xxxiii. 20. of\nGod\u2019s _covenant of the day and night_, or that there should be day and\nnight _in their season_; and, in Gen. xi. 9, 10, 11. of God\u2019s\nestablishing _his covenant with Noah, and his seed, and every living\ncreature, that all flesh should not be cut off any more, by the waters\nof a flood_. And, in Ezek. xxxiv. 25. when God promises to cause _evil\nbeasts to cease out of the land_, and that his people should _dwell\nsafely in the wilderness_, and that he would confer several other\nblessings upon them, mentioned in the following verses; this is called,\nhis making with them _a covenant of peace_. And, when God promises\nspiritual blessings to his people, in Isa. lix. 21. he says, _This is my\ncovenant with them; my Spirit that is upon thee, and the words that I\nhave put into thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of\nthe mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed\u2019s seed, saith\nthe Lord, from henceforth, and for ever_.\n\nMoreover, sometimes the Hebrew word, which we translate _covenant_, is\nused to signify a _statute_, or _ordinance_, which God has established,\nor appointed, in his church: thus, in Numb. xviii. 19. when God\nordained, that Aaron and his sons should have the heave-offerings of the\nholy things, he says, _These have I given thee, and thy sons and thy\ndaughters with thee, to be a statute for ever_, and adds, in the words\nimmediately following, _It is a covenant of salt for ever, before the\nLord_.\n\nAnd as for the word used in the New Testament,[90] by which the LXX\ngenerally translate the Hebrew word, before-mentioned, in the Old\nTestament, this signifies the same thing; so that both the words imply\nlittle more than a divine establishment or ordinance, in which God gives\nhis people ground to expect promised blessings, in such a way, as\nredounds most to his own glory; and at the same time, they, who are\nexpectants thereof, are not exempted from an obligation to perform those\nduties, which this grace obliges them to, and which will be an evidence\nof their right to them.\n\nAnd I cannot but farther observe, that among other acceptations of the\nword, especially as used by the apostle, in his epistle to the Hebrews,\nin chap. ix. 15-18. it signifies a Testament; which word some who treat\non this subject, rather choose to make use of, than to call it a\ncovenant, being warranted so to do, by the sense given of it in this\nscripture; and their reason for it is, not only because, as the apostle\nsays, it was _confirmed by the death of the Testator_;[91] but because\nthey conclude, that this more conduces to the advancing the grace of\nGod, in this dispensation, than to style it a _covenant_, in that sense,\nin which the word is commonly used, when applied to other matters: but I\nwould rather acquiesce in that medium, betwixt both extremes, which some\nhave given into, who join both the ideas of a covenant and a testament\ntogether[92], and style it, in some respects, a covenant, and, in others\na testament. If it be called a covenant, they abstract from the ideas\nthereof, some things, that are contained in the sense of the word, as\napplied to human contracts, and add to it other things, contained in a\ntestament; such as the giving or bequeathing certain legacies, as an act\nof favour, to those who are denominated, from thence, legatees,\ninterested in those gifts that are thus disposed of by the will of the\ntestator. Or if, on the other hand, we call it a testament it seems very\nagreeable, to this dispensation, to join with it the idea of a covenant,\nmore especially as to what contains the concern of Christ herein, as the\nHead thereof, or the Person in whom all the benefits, contained in this\ntestament, are first reposed, as they are purchased by his blood, and,\nas the consequence thereof, applied by his Spirit. And this agrees very\nwell with the subject-matter of this answer, in which the covenant is\nsaid to be made with him, and with the elect in him, as well as with\nwhat is contained in that answer immediately following, in which the\ncovenant of grace is described in such a way, as they describe it, who\nsay that it was made with believers. This is necessary to be premised,\nthat we may not, in our explication of this doctrine, advance any thing\nwhich is inconsistent with its being a covenant of grace: and, that we\nmay farther consider this matter, we shall proceed to shew,\n\nII. What there is in the idea of a covenant, as we generally understand\nthe word, when applied to signify a contract between man and man. In\nthis case, there are two parties, one of which is said to stipulate, or\nenter into a covenant with the other, in which he makes a proposal, that\nhe will confer some favours on him, upon certain conditions, provided he\nwill oblige himself to fulfil them; and the other party complies with\nthe proposal made, and, in expectation of those advantages, consents to\nfulfil the conditions enjoined, and accordingly is said to re-stipulate;\nas when a person engages another to be his servant, and to give him a\nreward for his service; and the other consents to serve him, in\nexpectation of the wages which he engages to give him: in this case,\neach party is supposed to be possessed of something, which the other has\nno right to, but by virtue of this contract made between them: thus the\nservant has no right to the rewards, which his master promises, nor has\nthe master any right to his service, but by mutual consent. Each party\nalso proposes some advantage to himself, and therefore, when they enter\ninto this agreement, they are supposed, in some respects, to stand on a\nlevel with each other. No one will enter into a covenant with another,\nfor the performing that which he had an antecedent right to; nor will\nany one engage to perform any service, as a condition of his receiving\nthose benefits, which he had a right to, without any such condition\nenjoined on him. Moreover, when two parties are said to enter into\ncovenant with one another, they are supposed, in some respects, to stand\nin need of some things, which they had before no right to; one party\nneeds the reward proposed; the other, the service which he enjoins, as a\ncondition of his bestowing it. These things are generally supposed, and\ncontained in contracts between man and man.\n\nIII. When God is said to enter into covenant with man, what method\nsoever we take to explain this federal transaction, we must take heed\nthat we do not include in it any thing that is inconsistent with his\ninfinite sovereignty, or argues him to be dependent on his creatures, as\nthough he had not an antecedent right to their obedience, which he\ndemands in this covenant, or it were left to man\u2019s arbitrary will\nwhether he would perform it or no. Though men may be said to have some\nthings in their own power, so that one has a right to that, which\nanother has no right to, but by his own consent, and are entirely left\nto their liberty, whither they will consign over that right, which they\nhad to it, to another, who could not otherwise lay claim to it; yet this\nis by no means to be applied to man when considered as having to do with\nthe great God. The best of creatures have no right to any thing,\nseparate from his arbitrary will; and therefore though stipulation and\nre-stipulation are proper words, when applied to a man\u2019s covenant, they\nought not to be made use of, when we explain this covenant between God\nand man.\n\nIV. Though the parties concerned in the covenant, as explained in this\nanswer, to wit, God the Father, and Christ the Head of his elect, are\nboth divine Persons, so that one of them is not infinitely below the\nother, as man is below God; and therefore it is more properly called a\ncovenant, in this respect, than that which God is said to enter into\nwith man, (and, if stipulation and re-stipulation is, in any respect,\napplicable to the divine dispensation, it may be applied in this case:)\nnevertheless, there are some things, which are implied in the idea of a\ncovenant between man and man, that cannot, consistently with the glory\nof these divine Persons, be contained in this federal transaction\nbetween them; particularly, as he that enters into covenant with\nanother, proposes some advantage to himself hereby: thus a master, when\nhe stipulates with one to be his servant, is supposed as much to need\nhis service, as the servant does the wages that he promises to give him;\nthere is a kind of mutual advantage arising from thence: but, in the\ncovenant of grace, whether God be said to make it with man, or with\nChrist, as the Head of his elect, the advantage that arises from thence\nis our\u2019s, and not God\u2019s. In this respect, what was done by Christ, made\nno addition to the essential glory of God, or the divine blessedness,\nany more than man can be said, in that respect, to be profitable to him:\nthus some understand those words of the Psalmist, as spoken by our\nSaviour, when he says, _My goodness extendeth not to thee, but to the\nsaints which are in the earth_, Psal. xvi. 2, 3. and this agrees very\nwell with some other things, contained in the same Psalm, which are\nexpressly, in other parts of scripture, applied to him; and, if so, then\nthe meaning is, that whatever glory God the Father designed to\ndemonstrate by this federal transaction with his Son; yet he did not, as\nmen do, by entering into covenant with one another, propose to receive\nany addition of glory from it, as though he were really to be profited\nthereby.\n\nAgain, when men enter into covenant with one another, they are supposed\nto have different wills, and accordingly they might refuse to enter into\nthose engagements, which they bring themselves under, as well as comply\nwith them; the obligation, on both sides, is founded in mutual consent,\nand that is supposed to be arbitrary: but, when we consider the eternal\ncompact between the Father and the Son, we must conclude, that though\nthey be distinct as to their personality, yet, having the same essential\nperfections, the will of the Father and the Son, cannot but be the same.\nTherefore when many, who explain this doctrine, represent one as\nproposing, the other as complying, with the proposal; one demanding, the\nother expecting, and each depending on mutual promises, made by one to\nthe other, this, it is true, seems to be founded on some\nscripture-expressions to the same purpose, wherein the Holy Ghost is\npleased to condescend to make use of such modes of speaking, which are\nagreeable to the nature of human covenants, as he does in various other\ninstances; nevertheless, we must not so far strain the sense of words,\nas to infer, from hence, any thing that is inconsistent with the divine\nglory of the Father and the Son. And to this we may add, that no act of\nobedience can be performed by a divine Person, in the same nature, as\nthere cannot be an act of subjection in that nature, which is properly\ndivine; and consequently when we consider Christ, in this respect, as\nentering into covenant, and engaging to perform those conditions, which\nwere insisted on therein, these are supposed to be performed by him, as\nMediator, or God incarnate, in his human nature; and, in this respect,\nhe is the Head of the covenant, which is made with him, and, in him,\nwith the elect. Therefore we must suppose, when we speak of a covenant\nbetween the Father and the Son, that, whatever be the will of the\nFather, the same is the Son\u2019s will; and whatever conditions the Son\nconsented to perform, as stipulated in this covenant, it was in his\nhuman nature that the work was to be done; and therefore it is well\nobserved, in some following answers, that he, who is the Head or\nMediator of this covenant, is, as it was absolutely necessary for him to\nbe, both God and man, in one Person. But of this more hereafter.\n\nV. There are several expressions used, in scripture, that give us\nsufficient ground to conclude, that there was an eternal transaction\nbetween the Father and the Son, relating to the salvation of his elect,\nwhich, if explained agreeably to the divine perfections, and\nconsistently with the glory of each of these divine Persons, is not only\nan undoubted truth, but a very important article of faith, as it is the\nfoundation of all those blessings, which are promised, and applied to us\nin the covenant of grace, in which is all our salvation and our hope.\nHere let it be considered, that, when we speak concerning a covenant, as\npassing between the Father and the Son, we understand thereby, that\nthere was a mutual consent between them both, that the work of our\nredemption should be brought about in such a way, as it was, by our\nSaviour, when this eternal agreement had its accomplishment; and\naccordingly the Father is said to _have set him up_, as the Head of his\nelect, _from everlasting_, Prov. viii. 23. and ordained, that he should\nexecute those offices, which he was to perform, as Mediator, and receive\nthat revenue of glory, that was the result thereof; and the Son, as\nhaving the same divine will, could not but consent to do this; and this\nis called, his eternal undertaking; and, both these together, are styled\nthe eternal covenant, between the Father and him.\n\nFor the proof of this doctrine, we might refer to those several\nscriptures that speak of our Saviour as _called_, and _given for a\ncovenant of the people_, Isa. xlii. 6. and _fore-ordained_, 1 Pet. i.\n20. to perform the work which he engaged in, in the behalf of his elect;\nand also consider him as consenting to do every thing for his people,\nwhich he did in time, and to stand in every relation to them, that was\nsubservient to their redemption and salvation, which he could not but\ndo, as having the same divine will with the Father; and without his\nconsent, it could not properly be said that there was a covenant between\nthem. We might also prove it from those several scriptures, that speak\nof him, as _sanctified and sent into the world_, John x. 36. to act as\nMediator, _sealed by the Father_, John vi. 27. and receiving a _power to\nlay down his life, and take it up again_, John x. 18. that so he might\nanswer the great end of our redemption thereby; and also, from his being\nempowered to execute the offices of a Prophet, Priest, and King;\nconfirmed in his priestly office by _the oath_, Psal. cx. 4. Heb. vii.\n21. of the Father, sent by him to execute his Prophetical office to\nthose whom he was to guide in the way of salvation; and, as _God\u2019s King,\nset on his holy hill of Zion_, Psal. ii. 6. When we consider all these\nthings done, on the Father\u2019s part, as antecedent to Christ\u2019s acting as\nMediator, and, at the same time, when we compare them with other\nscriptures, that speak of the Son, as consenting to do the will of God,\nor complying with his call, willing to be and do whatever was necessary,\nto secure the great ends designed thereby; when we consider him, as\ntaking the human nature into union with the divine, not without his own\nconsent thereunto, and as bearing the punishment due to our sin, which\nit would not have been just for God to have inflicted, without his will\nor consent; I say, this mutual consent between the Father and the Son,\nthat those things should be done which were subservient to the\nredemption and salvation of the elect, which the scripture is very\nexpress in giving an account of, these are a sufficient foundation for\nour asserting, that there was a covenant between the Father and the Son\nrelating thereunto.\n\nBut now we shall enquire, more particularly, into the sense of those\nscriptures, on which this doctrine is founded. And here we cannot wholly\npass over what we read, in Psal. cxix. 122. _Be surety for thy servant\nfor good_; and Hezekiah\u2019s prayer, in Isa. xxxviii. 14. _I am oppressed;\nundertake_, or be surety, _for me_. The Hebrew words are the same in\nboth places, and signifies, not barely to confer some privileges on\npersons, but to do this under the character of a surety; and therefore\nwhen David and Hezekiah pray that they may be delivered, either from\ntheir enemies, or their afflictions, by addressing themselves to their\nDeliverer under this character, it must be supposed that they understand\nhim, as having undertaken to be a Surety for his people, which is a\ncharacter that belongs only to the Son. And since it is so evident, that\nhis Mediatorial work and character was so well known to the Old\nTestament church, as their salvation was equally concerned herein with\nours; and, since they are often represented as addressing themselves to\nhim by faith and prayer, it seems more than probable that he is so\nconsidered in these texts, when it is desired that he would be _surety\nfor them_, namely, that as he was appointed by the Father, and had\nundertaken, by his own consent, to stand in that relation, they pray\nthat they might be made partakers of the benefits arising from thence.\n\nThere is also another scripture, in which the same word[93] is used,\nwhich seems to be applied to our Saviour, _viz._ in Jer. xxx. 21. _Their\nnobles_, or, as it ought to be rendered, in the singular number, their\nnoble, or magnificent person, _shall be of themselves, and their\ngovernor shall proceed from the midst of them; and I will cause him to\ndraw near, and he shall approach unto me; for who is this that engaged\nhis heart to approach to me, saith the Lord?_ This sense of the text is\nvery agreeable to several other prophecies, relating to the Messiah\u2019s\nbeing of the seed of Israel; and when it is said, _I will cause him to\ndraw near, and he shall approach unto me_, it implies, that he should\nsustain the character, and perform the work of a surety, in the behalf\nof his people, for that is the proper sense of the word there used; _for\nwho is this that hath engaged his heart unto me?_ that is, who is there,\namong the sons of men, that dares engage in this work, or is qualified\nfor it? Or it may be understood with a note of admiration; that is, how\nglorious a person is this, who hath engaged his heart, or (as it was\ndetermined that he should) has freely consented to approach unto me,\nthat is, in so doing, to act as a surety with me for my people! And that\nthis is a more probable sense of the text, than to suppose that it is\nmeant either of Zerubbabel, or some other governor, that should be set\nover them, after the captivity, appears, if we compare it with ver. 9.\nin which it is said, _They shall serve the Lord their God, and David\ntheir king_, which can be meant of none but Christ, inasmuch as David\nwas dead; and none that sat on his throne, or descended from him, can be\ncalled David in this place, because divine worship is said to be\nperformed to him, which could not be done without idolatry, which no\ntrue sense of scripture can give countenance to; and this is a character\ngiven of our Saviour in other scriptures: thus, in Ezek. xxxiv. 24. _I\nwill be their God, and my servant David a Prince among them_; and, in\nHos. iii. 5. _They shall seek the Lord their God, and David their King,\nand fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter day_; that is, they\nshall adhere, and give divine worship, to the Messiah, whom their\nfathers rejected, when they are converted, in the latter days. Now it is\nthis _David, their King_, who is said to have _engaged his heart to\napproach unto God_; and then, in the words immediately following, ver.\n22. God reveals himself, as a covenant-God, to them, which is the\nconsequence of Christ\u2019s engaging his heart to approach unto him: _Ye\nshall be my people, and I will be your God_. Now this proves an eternal\ntransaction between the Father and the Son, in that the Father wills, or\ndetermines, that he shall _draw near_, or _approach_ to him, as a\nsurety, and the Son consents, in that he has _engaged his heart_ to do\nit; and all this with a design that his covenant should be established,\nand that he should be a God to his people.\n\nThere is another scripture which proves that there was a federal\ntransaction between the Father and the Son, from several expressions\ntherein used, namely, in Isa. xlii. 1, 6. which is, beyond dispute,\nspoken concerning our Saviour; for it is applied to him in the New\nTestament, Matt. xi. 18-21. Herein God the Father calls him _his\nServant_, as denoting that it was his will, or (to use that mode of\nspeaking, which is generally applied to covenants between man and man)\nthat he stipulated with him, to perform the work which he engaged in, as\nMediator, to which he is said to be _called in righteousness_; and, with\nrespect to his human nature, in which he performed it, he is styled\n_God\u2019s elect_, as fore-ordained hereunto, and the person _in whom his\nsoul delighteth_, as he is glorified by him in the faithful discharge\nthereof; and, that he might not fail therein, God promises _to hold his\nhand, and keep him_; and, as the result of his having accomplished it,\n_to give him for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles_.\n\nAnd elsewhere, in Isa. xlix. 8, 9. which also appears to be spoken to\nChrist, not only from the context, but from the reference to it in the\nNew Testament, 2 Cor. vi. 2. _In an acceptable time have I heard thee,\nand in a day of salvation have I helped thee; and I will preserve thee,\nand give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to\ncause to inherit the desolate heritages; that thou mayest say to the\nprisoners, Go forth; to them that are in darkness, Shew yourselves_, we\nhave a plain intimation of his being ordained by the Father to perform\nthat work, which he was engaged in, as Mediator; and his _being given\nfor a covenant of the people_, signifies his being sent into the world,\nin pursuance of a covenant, in which the salvation of his people was\ncontained. And there is another scripture, in which our Saviour,\nspeaking to his disciples, says, in Luke xxii. 29. _I appoint unto you a\nkingdom, as my Father hath appointed me_;[94] or, I confer the blessings\nof this kingdom upon you, in a covenant way, as my Father hath appointed\nme to do, in that eternal covenant, which passed between him and me.\n\nAgain, there are several rewards, which were promised to him, as the\nconsequence of his discharging the work committed to him, some of which\nrespected that glory which belongs to his person, as Mediator; and\nothers, more especially, respected the salvation of his people, and\ntherein the success of his undertaking: thus it is said, in Isa. liii.\n10. _When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his\nseed; he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall\nprosper in his hands_; together with several other things relating to\nthe event, and consequence of his performing the work he was engaged in.\n\nMoreover, as he was called to this work, or, as it was, as we before\nexplained it, the result of the Father\u2019s will, that he should perform\nit; so we have elsewhere an account of his own consent, as implying,\nthat it was the result of his own will, as well as his Father\u2019s: thus it\nis said, in Psal. xl. 6-8. _Mine ears hast thou opened_, or bored:\nalluding to a custom used under the ceremonial law, by which the willing\nservant was signified to be obliged, by his own consent, to _serve his\nmaster for ever_, Exod. xxi. 5, 6. Thus God the Father, engaged Christ,\nif I may so express it, to perform the work of a Mediator; and then we\nhave an account of his consent hereunto, when he says, _Lo, I come, I\ndelight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart_; and\nthis mutual consent is farther expressed in Isa. l. 5. _The Lord God\nhath opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious; neither turned away\nback_.\n\nAnd he is farther represented, as making a demand, or insisting on the\naccomplishment of what was stipulated in this covenant; and this he had\na warrant to do from the Father, in Psal. ii. 8. _Ask of me, and I shall\ngive thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of\nthe earth for thy possession_. These, and many other scriptures of the\nlike nature, sufficiently prove this doctrine, that there was an eternal\ncovenant between the Father and the Son, relating to the redemption and\nsalvation of the elect; and this implies more than his being barely\n_fore-ordained_ to perform the work he was engaged in, as he is said to\nhave been, 1 Pet. i. 2. for that, alone, would not have proved that\nthere was a federal transaction between the Father and him; since it may\nbe said of any one, who is engaged in works of an inferior nature, that\nGod, who called him to perform them, fore-ordained that he should do so;\nbut when it is said, concerning our Saviour not only that he engaged in\nthe work of our redemption, as the result of his Father\u2019s will, but of\nhis own, and so consented to do whatever was incumbent on him, as\nMediator, this certainly argues that there was an eternal covenant\nbetween the Father and him, with relation to this matter, so far as we\nmay be allowed to retain any of those ideas taken from human covenants,\nwhen we speak of any transaction between two divine Persons.\n\nThere is but one scripture more that I shall mention, which, though some\nwill not allow that it relates to this matter, yet, if we duly consider\nthe scope and design thereof, together with its connexion with the\nforegoing words, may probably appear to be of some weight to confirm\nthis doctrine; namely, in Zech. vi. 13. in which it is said, _The\ncounsel of peace shall be between them both_. Some, indeed, understand\nthese words, as referring to Joshua and Zerubbabel, and that they\nsignify their mutual consent, to promote the peace and welfare of the\nchurch. But this cannot reasonably be concluded to be the sense of the\ntext; for Zerubbabel is not mentioned in this chapter; nor are there any\ntwo persons spoken of therein, that it can be applied to, but Jehovah\nand the Branch, that is, the Father and the Son, who are mentioned in\nthe foregoing words; Christ, who is called the Branch, is said _to build\nthe temple of the Lord_, and to be a _Priest upon his throne_; and this\nwork, which he was engaged in, and the royal dignity, which he was\nadvanced to, are both of them said to be the result of a counsel, or\nfederal transaction, that was between them both.\n\nIf it be objected to this, that this _counsel of peace_ only respects\nthe harmony that there is between Christ\u2019s priestly and kingly offices,\nas both of them have a reference to our salvation: this cannot well\nagree with the meaning of the word _counsel_, which implies in it a\nconfederacy between two persons, and not the tendency of two offices,\nexecuted to bring about the same end.\n\nAnd, if it be farther objected, that the grammatical construction of the\nwords do not favour the sense which we give of them, inasmuch as they\ncontain an account of something that was future, and not from all\neternity. To this it may be replied, that it is not, in the least,\ndisagreeable to the sense of the words, and other phrases of the like\nimport, used in scripture, to understand them in the sense\nbefore-mentioned, since it is no uncommon thing, in scripture, for that\nto be said to be, that appears to be: thus it is said, _Let all the\nhouse of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom\nye have crucified, both Lord and Christ_, Acts ii. 36. that is, he hath,\nby his raising him from the dead, demonstrated him to be _both Lord and\nChrist_, which, in reality, he was from all eternity; so, in this text,\nwhen it is said, that _the counsel of peace shall be between them both_,\nit signifies, that Christ\u2019s building the temple, and bearing the glory,\nand sitting as a Priest upon his throne, is a plain evidence, or\ndemonstration, that there was a counsel or covenant, between the Father\nand him, from all eternity, relating to the peace and welfare of his\npeople, who are the spiritual house that he builds, and the subjects\nwhom he governs, defends, and saves. Thus concerning the federal\ntransaction that was between the Father and the Son; and, since this is\ncalled, in this answer, _The covenant of grace_, it may be necessary for\nus to enquire,\n\nVI. Whether this be a distinct covenant from that which God is said to\nenter into, or make with man. This covenant is said, indeed, to be made\nwith Christ, as the head of his elect: but it may be enquired, whether\nthere be not also another covenant, which is generally styled the\ncovenant of grace, that is made with the elect, as parties concerned\ntherein. Every one, that is conversant in the writings of those who\ntreat on this subject, will observe, that divines often distinguish\nbetween the covenant of redemption, and that of grace; the former they\nsuppose to be made with Christ, in the behalf of his elect; the latter,\nto be made with them, in which all spiritual blessings are promised, and\napplied to them, which are founded on Christ\u2019s mediation; and\naccordingly they say, the _covenant of redemption_ was made with Christ\nmore immediately for himself; whereas the _covenant of grace_ is made\nwith believers for Christ\u2019s sake, in which respect they suppose that\nthese are two distinct covenants, and explain themselves thus.\n\n1. In the covenant of redemption, made with Christ, there were several\npromises given, which more immediately respected himself; and these\nrelated, some of them, to those supports and encouragements that he\nshould receive from the Father, which were necessary, in order to his\nbeing carried through the sufferings he was to undergo, _viz._ that God\n_would hold his hand, that he should not fail, or be discouraged_, Isa.\nxxiv. 4. and others respected that Mediatorial glory, which should be\nconferred upon him, when his sufferings were finished; as it is said,\n_Ought not Christ to have suffered, and to enter into his glory?_ Luke\nxxiv. 26. and that _he should have a name given him above every name_,\nPhil. ii. 9. and many other promises to the like purpose.\n\nAnd, besides these, there were other promises made to him, respecting\nhis elect; as that _he should have a seed to serve him_, Psal. xxii, 30.\nand that _he should see of the travail of his soul, and be satisfied_;\nand that _God would divide him a portion with the great, and he should\ndivide the spoil with the strong_, Isa. liii. 11, 12. or that his\ndifficult undertaking should be attended with its desired success, that\nso it might not be said that he died in vain.\n\nBut, on the other hand, in the covenant of grace, which they suppose to\nbe distinct from that of redemption, God promiseth forgiveness of sins,\nand eternal life, through Christ; or that that should be restored to us\nby him, which we lost by our fall in Adam, with great advantage; and\nthat all the blessings, which we stand in need of, for the beginning,\ncarrying on, and completing the work of grace in us, and the making us\nmeet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light, should\nbe freely given us. Now, as these promises are made to the elect, the\ncovenant, in which they are contained, is called, _The covenant of\ngrace_, and so distinguished from the covenant of redemption.\n\n2. In the covenant of redemption, as they farther explain it, the elect,\non whose account it was made, were considered, as to be redeemed by\nChrist: But, in the covenant of grace, they are to be considered as\nredeemed by him; therefore the covenant of redemption is antecedent, or\nsubservient, to the covenant of grace.\n\n3. They farther suppose, that the conditions of the covenant of\nredemption, on which the promises made therein were founded, are what\nChrist did and suffered in his own Person; whereas faith, wrought in us,\nis generally styled by them, a condition of the covenant of grace, and\nas such it is variously explained, as we shall have occasion to observe,\nunder the next answer, in which faith is said to be required, as the\ncondition to interest believers therein; in this respect, among others,\nthe covenant of redemption is oftentimes explained, as a distinct\ncovenant from that of grace.\n\nI confess, I am not desirous to offend against the generation of those\nwho have insisted on this subject, in such a way, as that they have not\nadvanced any doctrine derogatory to the divine perfections, or\nsubversive of the grace of God, displayed in this covenant; and\ntherefore I am inclined to think, as some have done, that this\ncontroversy may be compromised; or, if we duly weigh those distinctions\nthat are necessary to be considered, it will appear to be little more\nthan what consists in different modes of explication, used by those,\nwho, in the main, intend the same thing. I shall therefore humbly offer\nmy thoughts, about this matter, in the four following heads.\n\n(1.) It is to be allowed, on all hands, that the covenant of redemption,\nas some style it, is a covenant of the highest grace, so far as it\nrespects the advantages that the elect are to receive from it; for it is\na wonderful instance of grace, that there should be an eternal\ntransaction between the Father and the Son, relating to their salvation,\nand that herein he should promise to Christ, that, as the reward of his\nobedience and sufferings, he would give grace and glory to them, as it\nis allowed by all, who have just notions, either of the covenant of\nredemption, or that of grace, that he did herein.\n\n(2.) It must be farther allowed, on both sides, whether it be supposed\nthat the covenant of grace, and the covenant of redemption, are distinct\ncovenants, or not, that salvation, and all the blessings, which we\ngenerally call privileges of the covenant of grace, have their first\nfoundation in this transaction, between the Father and the Son; so that\nif there had not been such a covenant, which some call a covenant of\nredemption, we could have had no promise of these privileges made in the\ncovenant of grace.\n\n(3.) As there is nothing promised, or given, in the covenant of grace,\nbut what is purchased and applied by Christ, so there is nothing\npromised to Christ, in the covenant of redemption, as some style it, but\nwhat, some way or other, respects the advantage of his people: thus\nwhatever was stipulated between the Father and the Son, in that\ncovenant, was with a peculiar regard to their salvation. Did Christ, as\ntheir surety, promise to pay that debt, which was due from them, to the\njustice of God? this must be considered, as redounding to their\nadvantage. And, was there a promise given him, as was before observed,\nthat God _would hold his hand, that he should not fail, or be\ndiscouraged_, till he had finished the work that he came about? this\nmust also be supposed to redound to our advantage as hereby our\nsalvation is secured, which it could not have been, had he sunk under\nthe weight of that wrath, which he bore. And, was there a promise given\nhim, that he should, after his sufferings, _enter into his glory?_ this\nalso redounds to the advantage of the elect; for it not only consists in\nhis being freed from his sufferings, and having some personal glories\nput upon him, but in his going thither to prepare a place for them, and\nwith this design, that they should be brought there _to behold his\nglory_; and this is also considered, as a pledge and earnest of their\nfuture happiness, to whom he says, _Because I live, ye shall live also_,\nJohn xiv. 19.\n\n(4.) When we consider this covenant, as made with Christ, whether we\ncall it the covenant of redemption, or of grace, still we must look upon\nit as made with him, as the Head and Representative of his elect, and\nconsequently it was made with them, as is observed in this answer, as\nhis seed; therefore if the question be only this, whether it be more or\nless proper to call this two covenants, or one, I will not contend with\nthem, who in compliance with the common mode of speaking, assert, that\nthey are two distinct covenants: but yet I would rather choose to call\nthem two great branches of the same covenant; one whereof respects what\nChrist was to do and suffer, and the glory that he was to be afterwards\npossessed of; the other more immediately respects that salvation, which\nwas to be treasured up in and applied by him to the elect; and therefore\nI cannot but think, that what is contained in this answer, that the\ncovenant of grace was made with Christ, as the Head, and, in him, with\nthe elect, as his seed, is a very unexceptionable explication of this\ndoctrine.\n\nVII. Since we frequently read, in scripture, of God\u2019s entering into\ncovenant with man, and man with him, this is next to be explained, in\nsuch a way, as is consistent with the divine perfections, and, in order\nhereto, we have, in our entrance on this subject, enquired[95] into the\ngrammatical sense of the word _covenant_, and the common acceptation\nthereof in scripture, when applied to any transaction between God and\nman, and have shewn, that, however, there may be stipulation and\nre-stipulation, and thereby a passing over of mutual rights, from one\nparty concerned to the other, in covenants between man and man; yet that\nthis cannot, consistently with the glory of God, and that infinite\ndistance which there is between him and the creature, be applied to the\ncovenant of grace, and have produced some scriptures to prove, that the\nmain thing to be considered therein, is God\u2019s promising the blessings\nthat accompany salvation to his people.\n\nOther scriptures might have been referred to, to the same purpose, in\nwhich, when God is said to make a covenant with his people, we read of\nnothing but promises of temporal, or spiritual privileges, which he\nwould confer on them: thus, when he made a covenant with Abraham, he\nsays, _Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt,\nunto the great river, the river Euphrates_, Gen. xv. 18. and elsewhere\nhe says, _This shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of\nIsrael, I will put my law in their inward parts,_[96] _and write it in\ntheir hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be my people. They\nshall all know me, from the least to the greatest of them; for I will\nforgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more_, Jer.\nxxxi. 33, 34. We might also consider the description hereof, as it is\ncalled, _A covenant of promise_, Eph. ii. 12. and they, who are\ninterested herein, as called, _The children of promise_, Gal. iv. 28.\nNevertheless, God has ordained, that, pursuant to this method of\napplying the promises of this covenant, none should have ground to\nexpect to be made partakers thereof, but in such a way, as tends to set\nforth his infinite sovereignty, and unalienable right to obedience from\nhis creatures, which they are bound to perform, not only as subjects,\nunder a natural obligation to obey the divine law, but as those who are\nlaid under a super-added engagement thereunto, by the grace of the\ncovenant. This will prepare the way for what may be farther said, in\norder to our understanding the meaning of those scriptures, that speak\nof God\u2019s entering into a covenant with man, and man with him. Therefore\nlet it be observed,\n\n1. That when God entered into a covenant with Christ, as the Head of his\nelect, this included his entering into covenant with them; as it is\nexpressed in this answer; so that they have their respective concern\ntherein in all things, excepting what relates to his character, as\nMediator, Redeemer, Surety, and those peculiar branches of this\ncovenant, which, as was before observed, belong only to himself, which\nsome call the covenant of redemption, as distinct from the covenant of\ngrace. From hence it may be observed, without any strain on the sense of\nwords, that the same covenant that was made with him, was in that\npeculiar branch thereof that respected the elect, or the privileges that\nthey were to receive from him, made with them. This is very agreeable\nto, and tends to explain that peculiar mode of speaking, often used by\nthe apostle Paul, concerning believers being _crucified with Christ_,\nGal. ii. 20. _dead_, Rom. vi. 8. _buried_, ver. 4. _quickened_ or\n_risen_, Col. ii. 12. compared with chap. iii. 1. and made to _sit\ntogether in heavenly places in Christ Jesus_, Eph. ii. 6, as denoting\ntheir being made partakers, as his members, of the benefits arising from\nChrist\u2019s sufferings and glory, as really as though they had suffered,\nand were now actually glorified with him.\n\n2. Since the covenant of grace is sometimes called a covenant of\npromise, for the reasons before-mentioned, we may easily understand\nhereby, that God\u2019s entering into covenant with his people, signifies his\ngiving, or making known to them, those great and precious promises, that\nare contained therein, which have a more immediate reference to their\nsalvation; and, on the other hand, his keeping covenant with them,\nimplies, his bestowing on them the blessings promised in it, which is\notherwise called his _remembering his holy covenant_, Luke i. 72. or his\n_performing the truth to Jacob, and the mercy to Abraham, which he had\nsworn unto them from the days of old_, Micah. vii. 20. and it is\nsometimes called his _shewing them his covenant_, Psal. xxv. 14. not\nbarely in a way of revelation, but special application of the blessings\ncontained therein, and his _bringing them into the bond of the\ncovenant_, Ezek. xx. 37. that is, engaging or obliging them to\nobedience, from the constraints of his love and grace, manifested in the\npromises of this covenant; so that now they are doubly bound to be his,\nnot only as he is their Creator and Sovereign, but as he has made them,\nby this federal transaction, the peculiar objects of his favour and\ngrace.\n\n3. When God is pleased, as he often does, to annex to this covenant a\ndemand of faith, repentance, or any other graces, to be exercised by\nthose, who may claim an interest in the blessings thereof, this is\nagreeable to that idea, which, as was before observed, is contained in\nthis covenant, by which it is denominated an establishment, or divine\nappointment, or, as it is sometimes called, _a statute_, Numb. xviii.\n19. Psal. l. 16. and this respects the connexion of those graces with\nsalvation, and their indispensible obligation thereto, who hope to\nattain it. But this is rather a consequence of God\u2019s entering into\ncovenant with them, than an antecedent condition, stipulated by him,\nwhich would infer a kind of suspense in him, whether he should fulfil\nhis promise or no, till the conditions were performed. This is the\nprincipal thing we militate against, when we except against the use of\nthe word _stipulation_, with relation hereunto; whereas, if nothing else\nwere intended by this word, but the necessary connexion, which God has\nordained, that there should be between the blessings promised, and the\ngrace demanded in this covenant, as some, who use the word, understand\nnothing else by it; I would not contend about persons using, or laying\naside an improper, and, I think, I may say, unscriptural mode of\nspeaking.\n\nThus concerning the meaning of God\u2019s entering into covenant with man. We\nshall now proceed to the latter branch of this head, namely, what we are\nto understand by those scriptures that speak of man\u2019s entering into\ncovenant with God: such a mode of speaking we have, when Moses says to\nthe people, _Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God, that\nthou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his\noath, which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day_, Deut. xxix.\n10-12. and it is said elsewhere, _The people entered into a covenant to\nseek the Lord God of their fathers, with all their hearts, and with all\ntheir soul_, 2 Chron. xv. 12. and that, _Josiah made a covenant before\nthe Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments, and his\ntestimonies, and his statutes with all their heart, and with all their\nsoul, to perform the words of this covenant, that were written in this\nbook, and all the people stood to the covenant_, 2 Kings xxiii. 3. This\nis a most solemn transaction, and includes in it the very essentials of\npractical religion; therefore it is necessary for us to enquire, what we\nare to understand thereby; and, since scripture is the best interpreter\nof itself, and parallel texts give light to each other, we may observe\nwhat is said elsewhere, upon the like occasion, where God speaks of some\nthat _chuse the things that please him, love the name of the Lord, and\nto be his servants, and take hold of his covenant_, Isa. lvi. 4, 6. so\nthat to enter into covenant, is to take hold of God\u2019s covenant; to\nembrace the blessings promised therein, as the apostle speaks of those\n_who died in faith, not having received the promises_, or the blessings\npromised, but _having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them,\nand embraced them_, Heb. xi. 13. Again, as we receive the blessings of\nthe covenant by faith, so to enter into covenant with God implies, a\nprofessed dedication of ourselves to a covenant-God, with a due sense of\nour obligation to yield that obedience, which we are engaged to thereby,\nor a declaration that we pretend not to lay claim to the blessings of\nthe covenant, without being enabled, by his grace to comply with the\ndemands thereof; and this is sometimes expressed, by swearing to the\nLord, as it is said, _Unto me every knee shall bow, and every tongue\nshall swear_, Isa. xlv. 23. As God, when he enters into a covenant with\nman, is sometimes said to swear to him, or to confirm his promise by his\noath, upon which account the covenant of grace is sometimes called his\noath, as in one of the scriptures before-mentioned, and others that\nmight have been referred to, Luke i. 72, 73. so, on the other hand, our\nentering into covenant with him, is our swearing fealty, as subjects do\nto their princes, whereby they own them to be their rightful governors,\nand themselves under an obligation to serve them.\n\nThis is farther explained, in that solemn transaction that passed\nbetween God and his people, in the close of the ministry and life of\nMoses, Deut. xxvi. 17, 18. by which we may understand what is meant, in\nother places, by God\u2019s entering into covenant with them; this is\nexpressed by his _avouching them to be his peculiar people, as he had\npromised them, and that they should keep all his commandments_; _q. d._\nhe conferred this privilege upon them with that view, that they might\nreckon themselves under the highest obligation to be obedient to him;\nand then we have an explication of man\u2019s entering into covenant with\nGod, when it is said, _Thou hast avouched the Lord this day to be thy\nGod_, that is, thou hast publicly declared, that thou art willing to be\nsubject to him, as thy covenant-God, and expressed a ready inclination,\npursuant hereunto, to walk in his ways, and keep his statutes, and his\ncommandments, and his judgments, and to hearken unto his voice: this is\nsuch an entering into covenant, as is incumbent on all who expect the\nblessing thereof; and, if any one intends nothing more than this by\nrestipulation, when he uses the word in explaining this doctrine, I will\nnot contend with him; but, since it is to use a word without its proper\nideas, which others annex to it, I humbly conceive this doctrine may be\nbetter explained without it.\n\nFootnote 89:\n\n \u05d1\u05e8\u05d9\u05ea.\n\nFootnote 90:\n\n \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03ba\u03b7.\n\nFootnote 91:\n\n Rather, \u201cratified over a dead body,\u201d an ancient mode of covenanting.\n\nFootnote 92:\n\n _These style it, Testamento Foedus, or Foedus Testamentarium, or\n Testamentum Foederale._\n\nFootnote 93:\n\n _The Hebrew word in this, and the two other scriptures above\n mentioned, is_ \u05e2\u05e8\u05d1 _which signifies_, In fidem suam recipere; spondere\n pro aliquo; _and it is used in several other scriptures, in the same\n sense, for a person\u2019s undertaking to be a surety for another. See\n Gen._ xliii. _6. chap._ xliv. _32. Prov._ xi. _15. Job_ xvii. _3. 2\n Kings_ xviii. _32. and elsewhere._\n\nFootnote 94:\n\n \u0394\u03b9\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c5\u03bc\u03b9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03bc\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bf \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 \u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 95:\n\n _See Page 168. ante._\n\nFootnote 96:\n\n We are not to suppose that _they shall not teach every man_, &c. is\n designed to exclude all public and private, ministerial, family, and\n social instruction; for this is founded on the law of nature, and is\n enforced in the New Testament institution of a gospel-ministry to\n continue to the consummation of all things, (_Matth._ xxviii. 20. and\n _Eph._ iv. 11, 12, 13.) and in the obligation that it has laid upon\n _Christian parents_ to _bring up their children in the nurture and\n admonition of the Lord_; (Eph. vi. 4.) as also in the directions that\n are given in this very epistle, _chap._ iii. 13. and x. 24, 25. to\n _private_ Christians, to _exhort one another daily_, &c. This passage\n therefore must be taken, either in a _comparative_ sense, as such\n expressions often are: (See _Isa._ xliii. 18. _Jer._ xxiii. 18. and\n _Mat._ ix. 13) Or else with reference to _that manner_ of teaching\n which was used, and rested in under the obscurities of the Old\n Testament dispensation, and the corrupt interpretations of the\n _Jewish_ doctors; or both may be included. _Guyse._\n\n\n\n\n Quest. XXXII.\n\n\n QUEST. XXXII. _How is the grace of God manifested in the second\n covenant?_\n\n ANSW. The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant in that\n he freely provideth, and offereth to sinners a Mediator, and life\n and salvation by him; and requiring faith as the condition to\n interest them in him, promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all\n his elect, to work in them that faith, with all other saving graces,\n and to enable them unto all holy obedience, as the evidence of the\n truth of their faith and thankfulness to God, and as the way which\n he hath appointed to salvation.\n\nSince the covenant, which we have begun to consider, is called the\ncovenant of grace, it is necessary for us to shew in what respects the\ngrace of God is manifested therein; and, in order thereunto, we may\nobserve,\n\nI. That life and salvation, which are very comprehensive blessings,\ncontaining all that sinful creatures stand in need of, are promised\nherein. Hereby the grace of God is more eminently illustrated than it\nwas in the first covenant; in which though life was promised, yet there\nwas no promise of salvation, or of the recovery of a forfeited life.\nThis is only brought to light by the gospel, which contains a glorious\ndiscovery of the grace of this covenant: the blessings promised therein,\nare, grace here, and glory hereafter; all which are contained in that\npromise, _I will be a God to thee_, that is, I will deal with thee in\nsuch a way, as that all my divine perfections shall contribute to thy\nhappiness. And sometimes when God reveals himself as a covenant-God, he\npromises, as he did to Abraham, that _he will be their shield, and their\nexceeding great reward_, Gen. xv. 1. And there are other promises\nrespecting the forgiveness of sin; as when God says, _I, even I, am he\nthat blotteth out thy transgressions, for mine own sake, and will not\nremember thy sins_, Isa. xliii. 25. and, that we may consider this in\nits utmost extent, the apostle says as much as can be expressed in\nwords, which is the consequence of God\u2019s being a covenant-God to his\npeople, when he tells them, _All things are yours, whether Paul, or\nApollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present,\nor things to come; all are yours_, 1 Cor. iii. 22.\n\nII. Man could not have been made partaker of these invaluable blessings\ncontained in this covenant, without the interposition of a Mediator; for\nhe no sooner rebelled against God, but he was separated from his\npresence and deprived of all those blessings, which he might otherwise\nhave expected; and, on the other hand, the holiness and justice of God\nobliged him to testify his displeasure against him, whereby he was\nutterly excluded from all hope of obtaining any blessings from him: the\nperfections of the divine nature rendered it necessary that a\nsatisfaction for sin committed, should be insisted on; and this could\nnot be given by man in his own person, nor could he reasonably expect\nthat God should receive him into favour without it, as having rendered\nhimself guilty in his sight, and so liable to condemnation. Therefore,\nsince he could do nothing that had any tendency to repair the injuries\nwhich he had offered to the divine justice, if ever he have access to\nGod, and acceptance in his sight, it must be in and through a Mediator;\nwhich leads us to consider what we are to understand, by a mediator, and\nwhat was to be done by him, in order to the procuring this favour.\n\nA mediator, in general, is one who interposes between two parties that\nare at variance, in order to make peace; and this he does, either by\nendeavouring to persuade the party offended to lay aside his resentment,\nand forgive the injury, which is a less proper sense of the word; or\nelse by making an overture of satisfaction, as an inducement hereunto.\nIn the former sense it would have been an affront to the divine Majesty,\nand an injury to his justice, for any one to desire that God should be\nreconciled, without a satisfaction given; in the latter, we are to\nunderstand the word _Mediator_, when applied to Christ, in this answer.\nHe is not therefore herein to be considered barely as a Mediator of\nintercession, as pleading that God would remit the debt, out of his mere\nsovereignty or grace; but as a Mediator of satisfaction, or a Surety,\nentering into an obligation to answer all the demands of justice. In\nthis respect, he is the Mediator of the covenant; whereas, when he is\nsent, by God, to reveal, or make known the blessings thereof to man, he\nis styled, _The Messenger of the covenant_, Mal. iii. 1. It was possible\nfor a mere creature to perform the work of a mediator, in this lower,\nand less proper sense of the word; or, provided satisfaction were given\nto the justice of God, to intercede with him for the sinner, or intreat\nhim to turn away from the fierceness of his wrath, which sin deserved,\nin which sense Moses is styled a _mediator_, and in no other[97]; so\nsome understand that text, as spoken of him, when the apostle says, Gal.\niii. 19. of the law, that _it was ordained by angels, in the hand of a\nmediator_[98]; and, agreeably hereunto, Moses says, _I stood between the\nLord and you at that time, to shew you the word of the Lord; for, you\nwere afraid, by reason of the fire_, Deut. v. 5. and elsewhere, after\nIsrael had sinned, in worshipping the golden calf, he says, _You have\nsinned a great sin, and now I will go up unto the Lord: peradventure, I\nshall make an atonement for your sin_, Exod. xxxii. 30. not that he was\nto be accounted a mediator of satisfaction, for the atonement he hoped\nto make, was by entreaty, or humble supplication, that God would not\ndestroy them, as they had deserved. This I call a less proper sense of\nthe word _Mediator_; whereas, in this answer, Christ is styled a\nMediator, in the same sense in which he was a Redeemer, or Surety, for\nman, or made a proper atonement to procure reconciliation between God\nand man by his blood, of which more will be considered, when we speak\nconcerning Christ\u2019s priestly office.\n\nIII. It is a very great instance of grace, that God should admit of a\nMediator, who might have exacted the debt of us in our own persons; and,\nwe being unable to pay it, might have punished us with everlasting\ndestruction. That he was not obliged to admit of a Mediator, will\nappear, if we consider the nature of the debt due from us, who were\nobliged to perform perfect obedience, or else to suffer punishment; and\ntherefore he might have refused to have allowed of this to be performed\nby another, in our stead: in this case, it is not like as when pecuniary\ndebts are paid, which cannot be refused by the creditor, though paid by\none that is surety for the debtor. But, since this will be more\nparticularly considered, when we speak concerning the satisfaction which\nChrist gave to the justice of God, as our great High-Priest, all that we\nshall add, concerning it, at present, is, that it was an instance of\nthat grace, which was displayed in the covenant, in which Christ is\nconsidered as a Mediator of satisfaction.\n\nIV. The grace of God farther appears, in that he not only admitted of a\nMediator, but provided one. It was impossible for fallen man to find out\nany one that would so much as plead his cause, or speak a word in his\nbehalf, till satisfaction were first given; and no mere creature could\npay unto God a ransom that was worthy of his acceptance, or available,\nto answer the end designed thereby. If the best of creatures had\nundertaken the work, it would have miscarried in his hands: How\ndeplorable and hopeless then must the condition of fallen man for ever\nhave been, if God had not found out the expedient himself to bring about\nour redemption! this was a blessing unthought of, unasked for by him. I\nwill not deny but that man might have some ideas of the divinity and\nglory of the second Person in the Godhead, as the doctrine of the\nTrinity was revealed to him, while in a state of innocency, as it was\nnecessary that it should be, in order to his worshipping of each of the\ndivine Persons, and I doubt not but he retained some ideas hereof when\nfallen. But it may be questioned, whether he knew that it was possible\nfor the Son of God to be incarnate; or suppose, for argument-sake, we\nallow that he had some idea of the possibility thereof; yet he could\nnever have known that he was willing to submit to this astonishing\ninstance of condescension, and thereby to put himself in the sinner\u2019s\nroom, that he might procure that redemption that was necessary for him.\nThis mystery of the divine will was hid in God, and therefore could\nnever have been known by him without revelation, and consequently would\nnot have afforded him any matter of relief in his deplorable state. How\nwonderful therefore was the grace of God, that he should find out this\nexpedient, and lay help on one that is mighty, or provide one to do that\nfor him, which none else could have done!\n\nAnd to this we may add, that it was no less an instance of divine grace,\nthat God the Son should consent to perform this work for him: his\nundertaking it, was without the least force or compulsion; for that\nwould have been inconsistent with his consenting to become a Surety for\nus, and, as such, to suffer in our room and stead, since all punishment\nmust either be deserved by him, that bears it, or else voluntarily\nsubmitted to: The former of these can by no means be said of Christ; for\na personal desert of punishment is inconsistent with his spotless\npurity, and would have rendered the price, laid down by him for our\nredemption, invalid; therefore he voluntarily condescended to engage in\nthis work. He gave his life a ransom for many; and this is considered as\na peculiar display of grace in him, as the apostle expresses it, _Ye\nknow the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet,\nfor your sakes, he became poor, that ye, through his poverty, might be\nrich_, 2 Cor. viii. 9.\n\nV. This Mediator being provided for man, without his desert or\nexpectation, we proceed to consider him as offered to him, and, together\nwith him, life and salvation. This is the great design of the gospel, to\ndiscover, or make an overture hereof to him; without this, the gospel\ncould not be preached, nor a visible publication made of the grace of\nthe covenant contained herein: but, since the overture of grace, or the\ncall of God to accept of, and embrace Christ, as offered in the gospel,\nis more particularly considered under a following answer[99], we shall\nreserve the farther consideration of this matter to it.\n\nVI. It is farther said, in this answer, that the grace of God is\nmanifested in the second covenant, in his requiring faith, as the\ncondition to interest believers in Christ. This expression may be\nallowed of, or excepted against, according to the method taken to\nexplain it, which we shall endeavour to do, and therein shew in what\nsense we deny the covenant of grace to be conditional; and then enquire,\nwhether there be not another sense, agreeable to the divine perfections,\nin which these words may be understood, and other expressions, of the\nlike nature, frequently used by divines, in which faith is styled a\ncondition thereof; and accordingly we shall enquire,\n\n1. What we are to understand by a person\u2019s having an interest in Christ.\nThis implies our having a right to claim him, as our Mediator, Surety,\nAdvocate, and Saviour, and with him all those spiritual blessings, which\nare purchased and applied by him to those whom he has redeemed; so that\nsuch an one may say, upon good grounds, Christ is mine, together with\n_all spiritual blessings in heavenly things in him_.\n\nHere let it be considered, that it is one thing to say, that Christ is\nthe Redeemer and Saviour of man, or, in particular, of his elect, who\nare given to him for this end; and another thing for a person to say, he\nis my Redeemer or Saviour: the former of these is a truth, founded in\nscripture-revelation; and accordingly every one may say, as Moses\nexpresses it, _Yea, he loved the people_, Deut. xxxiii. 3. or his\npeculiar chosen people; or, as the apostle says, _Christ loved the\nchurch, and gave himself for it_, Eph. v. 25. But he, who has an\ninterest in Christ, has a right to claim him, as his Saviour, and\ntherefore may say, with the apostle, _He loved me, and gave himself for\nme_, Gal. ii. 20. This I rather choose to express, by a believer\u2019s\nhaving a right to claim him as his Saviour, than his being actually\nenabled so to do, inasmuch as many have an interest in Christ, who are\ndestitute of that assurance, which would give them a comfortable sense\nthereof in their own souls.\n\n2. We are now to consider how faith is said to be required, as the\ncondition to interest us in Christ; or how far this expression may be\nqualified and explained, without asserting any thing derogatory to the\nglory of God, or the grace of the covenant. The word _condition_, though\noften used when we speak of contracts between man and man, as an\nessential ingredient therein, is not so plainly contained in those\nexplications of the covenant of grace, which we have in scripture; and,\nwhenever we use it, with a particular application thereunto, we must\nunderstand it in such a sense, as is agreeable to the divine\nperfections. Therefore, that we may compare these two senses of the word\n_condition_ together, in order to our determining how far it may be\nused, or laid aside, in explaining this doctrine, let us consider,\n\n(1.) That in human covenants, in which things are promised on certain\nconditions, these conditions are supposed to be possible to be\nperformed, otherwise the promise, depending thereon, is rendered void,\nand it contains no other than a virtual denial to make it good. Thus the\nking of Israel did not, at first, understand the message sent him by the\nking of Syria, requiring of him to heal Naaman of his leprosy, as a\ncondition of peace and friendship between them; and the inference he\nmakes from it was, that he had a design to seek a quarrel against him;\nand his reasoning would have been just, had it been intended in this\nsense, since the condition was not in his own power. Moreover, if a\nmaster should tell his servant, that he would give him a reward, in case\nhe would perform the work of ten days in one, he would conclude nothing\nelse from it, but that he was resolved not to give him any thing. Now,\nto apply this to our present purpose, we must consider whether faith,\nwhen it is a condition of the covenant of grace, be in our own power or\nno. There are some external acts thereof, indeed, which are so; but\nthese are too low to be deemed conditions of salvation, or of the\nblessings of the covenant of grace; and as for those acts which are\nsupernatural, or the effects of the exceeding greatness of the power of\nGod, though they are inseparably connected with salvation, yet they are\nnot in our power; so as that we may conclude, that they are proposed as\nconditions, in the same sense as those things are said to be, that are\nsupposed to contain this ingredient in them.\n\nIn this respect, the covenant of grace, as to the conditionality of it,\ndiffers from the covenant of innocency, in which perfect obedience,\nwhich was the condition thereof, was so far in man\u2019s power, that he\ncould have performed it, without the superadded assistance of divine\ngrace: but when, on the other hand, perfect obedience is considered, as\na condition of fallen man\u2019s _entering into life_, in which sense our\nSaviour\u2019s reply to the young man\u2019s question, in Matt. xix. 17. is\nunderstood by many, this is a plain intimation that eternal life is not\nto be obtained this way, inasmuch as the condition is impossible.\n\n(2.) When conditions are insisted on, in human covenants, it is\ngenerally supposed, that though it be possible for the person, that\nenjoins them, to assist, and enable him, who is under this obligation,\nto perform them, yet he will not give him that assistance; for, if he\ndoes, the contract can hardly be reckoned conditional, but absolute:\nthus if a creditor should tell an insolvent debtor, that he will\ndischarge him, provided he pays the debt, and, at the same time, gives\nhim to understand that he will supply him with a sum of money, that\nshall enable him to do it, this is altogether the same as though he had\ndischarged him, without any conditional demand of payment. This I cannot\nbut mention, because there are some persons, who speak of faith, as a\ncondition of the covenant of grace, and, at the same time, take it for\ngranted, that it is not in our own power to perform it: nevertheless,\nsince God has promised that he will work it in us, they conclude it to\nbe conditional; whereas such a promise as this would render the covenant\nabsolute, or, at least, not conditional, in the same sense, in which\nhuman covenants are, and only infer what we do not deny, that there is a\nnecessary connexion between that grace, which God will enable us to\nperform, and salvation, which he has promised in this covenant.\n\n(3.) When any thing is promised to another, on condition that he do what\nis enjoined on him, it is generally supposed that it is a dubious and\nuncertain matter whether this condition shall be fulfilled, and the\npromise take place; or, as I may express it, every condition contains\nnot a necessary, but an uncertain connexion between the promised\nadvantage, and the duty enjoined, and that for this reason, because all\nhuman covenants depend on the power and will of men, who are under\nconditional engagements to perform what is demanded therein; and these\nare supposed to be mutable and defective, and, as far as they are so,\nthe performance of the condition may be reckoned dubious; and he that\nmade the promise is liable to the same uncertainty, whether he shall\nmake it good or no. This will hardly be denied, by those who defend the\nother side of the question, who, in explaining the nature of human\nliberty, generally suppose, that every one, who acts freely, might do\nthe contrary; therefore they must, from hence, conclude, that, if the\nperforming the conditions of a covenant be the result of man\u2019s free\nwill, it is possible for him not to perform them, and therefore it must\nbe a matter of uncertainty, whether a person, who promises a reward upon\nthe performance of these conditions, will confer it or no. But, however\nthis may be applied to human covenants, we are not to suppose that\nfaith, or any other grace, is, in this respect, a condition of the\ncovenant of grace, as though God\u2019s conferring the blessings promised\ntherein were dependent on the will of man, as determining itself to the\nexercise of these graces; in this respect, we cannot but deny the\ncovenant of grace to be conditional.\n\n(4.) If we take an estimate of the worth and value of a condition\nenjoined, the advantages that he, who enjoins it, expects to receive\nfrom it, or the reference that the performance thereof has to the\nprocuring the blessing promised, in which case the person, who has\nfulfilled it, may be said to merit, or have whereof to glory in himself,\nas to what concerns the part he has performed therein: this must not be\napplied to any transaction between God and man, and therefore is wholly\nto be excluded from those ideas, which are contained in the word\n_condition_, when applied to the covenant of grace, as will be allowed\nby most, who do not give into the Popish doctrine of the merit of good\nworks. Concerning the worth and value of faith, and all other graces, I\nwould not be thought, in the least, to depreciate or divest them of that\nexcellency, which they have, above all other effects of God\u2019s power and\nblessings of providence; whereas certainly we ought to bless God for\nthem, or glory in him, as the Author of them: but that which we would\nfence against in this matter, is nothing more than what our Saviour\ndoes, when he says, _When ye shall have done all those things which are\ncommanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants_, Luke xvii. 10. And I\nwould not have any one suppose, that whatever condition is performed by\nus, has such a value put on it, as that eternal life is hereupon due to\nus, in a way of debt, which would make way for boasting. It is true, the\nconditions which Christ performed in that branch of the covenant, which\nmore immediately respected himself, which some call the covenant of\nredemption, were properly meritorious, and the blessings he purchased\nthereby were given him in a way of debt, and not as an undeserved\nfavour: but, if we suppose that there is the same reference of faith, or\nany other grace acted by us, to that salvation, which we expect, we turn\nthe covenant of grace into a covenant of works, and resolve that into\nourselves which is due to God alone.\n\nBut since many excellent divines have asserted faith to be a condition\nof the covenant of grace, who do not understand the word _condition_,\neither as containing in it any thing dubious or uncertain on the one\nhand, or meritorious on the other; and probably they choose to express\nthemselves so, in compliance with custom, and to explain away the common\nideas of the word _condition_, as applied to human covenants, rather\nthan altogether to lay it aside; and, it may be, they do this, lest they\nshould be thought to deny the necessary connexion between faith and\nsalvation: I shall therefore, for the same reason, conclude this head\nwith the following propositions, whereby our not using the word\n_condition_, may be vindicated, from any just exception; or, our using\nof it may not appear to be inconsistent with the divine perfections, or\nthe grace of this covenant. Therefore,\n\n_1st_, We shall lay down this as an undoubted truth, the denial whereof\nwould be subversive of all religion, that faith, and all other graces,\nare required by God, and our obligation thereunto is indispensible;\nwhether it be reckoned a condition of the covenant or no, it is no less\na duty.[100] It is true, there are some who distinguish between the\nobligation of a law, and that of a covenant; the former of which depends\non an express command; the latter is the result of some blessings\npromised or conferred, which has in it the obligation of a law, but not\nthe formal nature of it; and therefore they conclude, that we are\ncommanded by God, as a Lawgiver, to believe and repent, but that it is\nmore proper to say, we are rather engaged by him, as a covenant-God,\nthan commanded to exercise these graces: but this dispute is rather\nabout the propriety of words, than the main substance of the doctrine\nitself; and therefore I shall enter no farther into this critical\nenquiry, but content myself with the general assertion, that faith, and\nall other graces are necessary duties; without which, _it is impossible\nto please God_, to use the apostle\u2019s expression, Heb. xi. 6. or to have\nany right to the character of Christians.\n\n_2dly_, Faith, and all other graces, are to be also considered as\nblessings, promised in the covenant of grace. This appears from those\nscriptures that speak of them as _the gifts of God_, Eph. ii. 8.\npurchased by the blood of Christ, and so founded on _his righteousness_,\n2 Pet. i. 1. and wrought in us by his Spirit, and the _exceeding\ngreatness of his power_, Eph. i. 19. and as discriminating blessings,\nwhich all are not partakers of, as the apostle says, _All men have not\nfaith_, 2 Thess. iii. 2.\n\nThis may be farther argued, from what Christ undertook to purchase for,\nand apply to his people, as their federal Head; so that, in pursuance\nhereof, all spiritual blessings in heavenly things, are bestowed on\nthem, in him; and hereby the covenant is made good to them, as God is\nsaid, _together with Christ, to give them all things_, Rom. viii. 32.\nFirst, Christ is given for a covenant of his people, and then, upon his\nfulfilling what he undertook to procure for them, all that grace, which\nis treasured up in him, is applied to them; therefore faith, and other\nconcomitant graces, are covenant-blessings.\n\n_3dly_, There is a certain connexion between faith, with other\nconcomitant graces, and salvation. But this having been considered\nelsewhere, together with the sense of those scriptures, that seem to be\nlaid down in a conditional form, from whence the arguments, to prove the\nconditionality of the covenant of grace, are generally taken;[101] all\nthat we shall add, at present, is, that since, in this eternal covenant\nbetween the Father and the Son, it was agreed, established, and, on our\nSaviour\u2019s part, undertaken, that the elect should be not only redeemed,\nbut sanctified, and enabled to exercise all grace, before they are\nbrought to glory, this is made good to them in this covenant; and\ntherefore, as the consequence of Christ\u2019s purchase, faith, and all other\ngraces, are wrought in the soul, which afterwards, in receiving the end\nof faith, is brought to eternal salvation; so that we may as well\nseparate Christ\u2019s undertaking to redeem his people from their attaining\nsalvation, as we can his applying those graces which accompany it.\n\nHowever, when we speak of these graces, as connected with salvation, we\nmust not conclude that they are the cause thereof. Though we are saved\nin a way of believing, we are not saved for our faith; and therefore I\ncannot but approve of what is observed by many divines, who treat of\nthis subject, that these graces are the way to heaven, though Christ\u2019s\nrighteousness be the cause of our coming there.[102] I am sensible there\nare some who express their dislike of some of the most unexceptionable\nmodes of speaking, if not altogether agreeable to those which they make\nuse of, who can hardly approve of any one\u2019s asserting, that faith, and\nother graces, are the way to salvation; partly, because they are the\nbeginning of salvation, and principally, because Christ styles himself,\n_The Way_, John xiv. 6. But to this it may be replied, that though grace\nbe glory begun, yet it may as truly be said to be the way to complete\nsalvation, as the traveller\u2019s setting out, and going forward on his\njourney, is the way to the end thereof, without which it can never be\nattained; and, though Christ be the way to salvation, as every thing\nthat tends to fit us for, and bring us to it, is founded on what he did\nfor us, as Mediator; yet this does not, in the least, overthrow the\nconnexion of grace with glory, in the method in which he brings his\npeople to it, by first working faith, and all other graces in them,\nbefore the work is brought to perfection, or the top-stone thereof is\nlaid.\n\n_4thly_, If we assert more than this, namely, that faith is a condition\nof the covenant of grace, or, as it is expressed in this answer, a\ncondition to interest believers in Christ, we must distinguish between\nGod\u2019s bestowing the blessings of the covenant of grace, pursuant to his\nsecret will, or his eternal purpose; and our having a visible ground, or\nreason, to claim an interest in them; the former of these cannot be\nsupposed to be conditional, without making God dependent on our act; the\nlatter may, and, I think, ought to be deemed so. Thus faith is a\ncondition, or an internal qualification, without which no one has a\nwarrant to conclude his interest in, or lay claim to the saving\nblessings of the covenant of grace, so that when it is said to be a\ncondition to interest believers in Christ, in this answer, we are to\nunderstand it, as that which evinces our claim to him, or gives us\nground to conclude, that we are redeemed by him, and to expect that he\nwill bestow upon us complete salvation. To deny this, would be to\nsuppose, that an unbeliever has a warrant to conclude that Christ loved\nand gave himself for him, or that he shall be saved by him; which is a\ndoctrine that I cannot but oppose with the greatest detestation, as what\ncontains in it an unwarrantable presumption, and leads to\nlicentiousness, which, I hope, nothing, that has been said on this\nsubject, has the least tendency to do. Thus we have considered how faith\nmay be said to be a condition of our laying claim to an interest in\nChrist; we proceed,\n\nVII. To consider how the grace of God is glorified, in his having\nordained, that we should apprehend or discern our interest in Christ,\nand the blessings of the covenant, by faith. Of all other graces, faith\nis that which has the greatest tendency to discover to the soul its own\nvileness, and nothingness; and, indeed, every thing that we behold in\nChrist its object, has a tendency to abase us in our own sight. Do we,\nby faith, behold Christ\u2019s fulness? This has a tendency to humble us,\nunder a sense of our own emptiness. Do we look on Christ as the Fountain\nof all righteousness and strength? This leads us to see that we are\ndestitute hereof in ourselves; so that, as faith beholds all that we\nhave, or hope for, as being founded on, and derived from Christ, and\ngives us hereupon the greatest sense of our own unworthiness, this is in\nits own nature adapted to advance the grace of God; and therefore God,\nin taking this method to apply the blessings of the covenant, requiring\nfaith, as an instrument, hereof, ordained the best expedient, to\nillustrate, and set forth his own grace as displayed therein. But since\nit is a very difficult matter to believe, as this grace of faith is the\ngift and effect of the power of God, we are now to consider,\n\nVIII. That the grace of the covenant is farther manifested, in that God\nhas promised, and pursuant thereunto, gives his Holy Spirit to work\nfaith, and all other graces that are connected with, or flow from it.\nThat we have in the covenant of grace a promise of the Holy Spirit, to\nwork in us, that grace which God requires, is very evident; for he says,\n_I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of\nJerusalem, the Spirit of grace, and of supplications_, Zech. xii. 10.\nand elsewhere, God promises _to pour his Spirit upon their seed, and his\nblessings upon their offspring_, Isa. xliv. 3. and this is farther set\nforth, in a metaphorical way, when he promises _to sprinkle clean water_\non his people, and that _he would cleanse them from all their\nfilthiness, and from all their idols, and give them a new heart, and put\na new spirit within them, and take away the stony heart out of their\nflesh, and give them an heart of flesh_, and all this is said to be done\nby _his Spirit_, which he promised _to put within them_, Ezek. xxxvi.\n25-27. And more particularly, the Spirit, as working faith in the hearts\nof believers, is called, for that reason, _The Spirit of faith_, 2 Cor.\niv. 13. and all other graces are called, _The fruit of the Spirit_, Gal.\nv. 22, 23. so that they are from the Spirit, as the Author of all grace,\nand they proceed from faith, as one grace tends to excite another: thus\nthe heart is said _to be purified by faith_, Acts xv. 9. which is said\nalso _to work by love_, Gal. v. 6. and hereby we are enabled _to\novercome the world_; and this produces all holy obedience, which is\ncalled, _The obedience of faith_, Rom. xvi. 26. Thus concerning the\nSpirit\u2019s working faith and all other graces.\n\nAgain, it is farther added, that the truth and sincerity of faith is\nevidenced as well as the grace of faith wrought by the Spirit; and this\nis also a blessing promised in the covenant of grace. Hereby we are\nenabled to discern our interest in Christ, and our right to all the\nblessings that accompany salvation; in which respect, the _secret of the\nLord is with them that fear him, and he shews them his covenant_, Psal.\nxxv. 14. He not only discovers to them that there is such a dispensation\nof grace in general, but that they have a right to the blessings\npromised therein, and accordingly _seals them unto the day of\nredemption_, Eph. iv. 30. and hereby they are enabled to walk\ncomfortably, as knowing in whom they have believed, and, are induced to\nthe greatest thankfulness, as those, who are under the highest\nobligations to God, who promises and bestows these, and all other\nblessings, whereby his grace is abundantly manifested, in this covenant.\n\nFootnote 97:\n\n _Such an one is more properly called Internuncius, than Mediator._\n\nFootnote 98:\n\n _Vid. Bez. and Whitby in loc._\n\nFootnote 99:\n\n _See Quest._ lxvii.\n\nFootnote 100:\n\n \u201cThe law of God itself requires no creature to love him, or obey him,\n beyond his _strength_, or with more than all the powers which he\n possesses. If the inability of sinners to believe in Christ, or to do\n things spiritually good, were of this nature, it would undoubtedly\n form an excuse in their favour; and it must be as absurd to exhort\n them to such duties, as to exhort the blind to look, the deaf to hear,\n or the dead to walk. But the inability of sinners is not such as to\n induce the Judge of all the earth, (who cannot do other than right) to\n abate in his requirements. It is a fact that he does require them, and\n that without paying any regard to their inability, _to love him_, and\n _to fear him_, and _to do all his commandments always_. _The blind_\n are admonished _to look, the deaf to hear_, and _the dead to arise_.\n Isa. xlii. 18. Ephes. v. 14. If there were no other proof than what is\n afforded by this single fact, it ought to satisfy us that the\n blindness, deafness, and death of sinners, to that which is\n spiritually good, is of a different nature from that which furnishes\n an excuse. This however is not the only ground of proof. The thing\n speaks for itself. There is an essential difference between an\n inability which is independent of the inclination, and one that is\n owing to nothing else. It is equally impossible, no doubt, for any\n person to do that which he has no mind to do, as to perform that which\n surpasses his natural powers; and hence it is that the same terms are\n used in the one case as in the other. Those who were under the\n dominion of envy and malignity, COULD NOT _speak peaceably_; and those\n who have _eyes full of adultery_, CANNOT _cease from sin_. Hence also\n the following language\u2014_How_ CAN _ye, being evil, speak good\n things?\u2014The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God,\n neither_ CAN _he know them\u2014The carnal mind is enmity against God; and\n is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed_ CAN _be\u2014They that\n are in the flesh_ CANNOT _please God\u2014No man_ CAN _come to me, except\n the Father who sent me draw him._\u2014It is also true, that many have\n affected to treat the distinction between natural and moral inability\n as more curious than solid. \u2018If we be unable, say they, we are unable.\n As to the nature of the inability, it is a matter of no account. Such\n distinctions are perplexing to plain Christians, and beyond their\n capacity.\u2019 But surely the plainest and weakest Christian in reading\n his bible, if he pay any regard to what he reads, must perceive a\n manifest difference between the blindness of Bartimeus, who was\n ardently desirous that _he might receive his sight_, and that of the\n unbelieving Jews, who _closed their eyes, lest they should see, and be\n converted, and healed_; Mark x. 51. Matt. xii. 15. and between the\n want of the natural sense of hearing, and the state of those _who have\n ears, but hear not_.\n\n \u201cSo far as my observation extends, those persons who affect to treat\n this distinction as a matter of mere curious speculation, are as ready\n to make use of it as other people where their own interest is\n concerned. If they be accused of injuring their fellow-creatures, and\n can allege that what they did was not _knowingly_, or of _design_, I\n believe they never fail to do so: or when charged with neglecting\n their duty to a parent, or a master; if they can say in truth that\n they were _unable_ to do it at the time, _let their will have been\n ever so good_, they are never known to omit the plea: and should such\n a master or parent reply by suggesting that their want of ability\n arose from want of _inclination_, they would very easily understand it\n to be the language of reproach, and be very earnest to maintain the\n contrary. You never hear a person, in such circumstances, reason as he\n does in religion. He does not say, \u2018If I be unable, I am unable; it is\n of no account whether it be of this kind or that:\u2019 but labours with\n all his might to establish the difference. Now if the subject be so\n clearly understood and acted upon where interest is concerned, and\n never appears difficult but in religion, it is but too manifest where\n the difficulty lies. If by fixing the guilt of our conduct upon our\n father Adam, we can sit comfortably in our nest; we shall be very\n averse to a sentiment that tends to disturb our repose, by planting a\n thorn in it.\n\n \u201cIt is sometimes objected, that the inability of sinners to believe in\n Christ, is not the effect of their depravity; for that Adam himself in\n his purest state was only a _natural man_, and had no power to perform\n spiritual duties. But this objection belongs to another topic, and\n has, I hope, been already answered. To this, however, it may be\n added\u2014_The natural man who receiveth not the things of the Spirit of\n God_, (1 Cor. ii. 14.) is not a man possessed of the holy image of\n God, as was Adam, but of mere natural accomplishments; as were the\n _wise men of the world_, the philosophers of Greece and Rome, to whom\n the things of God were _foolishness_. Moreover, if the inability of\n sinners to perform spiritual duties, were of the kind alleged in the\n objection, they must be equally unable to commit the opposite sins. He\n that from the constitution of his nature is absolutely unable to\n understand, or believe, or love a certain kind of truth, must of\n necessity be alike unable to _shut his eyes_ against it, to\n disbelieve, to reject, or to hate it. But it is manifest that all men\n are capable of the latter; it must therefore follow, that nothing but\n the depravity of their hearts renders them incapable of the former.\n\n \u201cSome writers, as hath been already observed, have allowed that\n sinners are the subjects of an inability which arises from their\n depravity; but they still contend that this is not _all_; but that\n they are both _naturally_ and _morally_ unable to believe in Christ;\n and this they think agreeable to the scriptures, which represent them\n as both _unable_ and _unwilling_ to come to him for life. But these\n two kinds of inability cannot consist with each other, so as both to\n exist in the same subject, and towards the same thing. A moral\n inability supposes a natural ability. He who never in any state was\n possessed of the power of seeing, cannot be said to _shut his eyes_\n against the light. If the Jews had not been possessed of natural\n powers, equal to the knowledge of Christ\u2019s doctrine, there had been no\n justice in that cutting question and answer, _Why do ye not understand\n my speech? Because ye_ CANNOT _hear my word_. A total physical\n inability must of necessity supersede a moral one. To suppose,\n therefore, that the phrase, _No man_ CAN _come to me_, is meant to\n describe the former; and, YE WILL NOT _come to me that ye may have\n life_, the latter; is to suppose that our Saviour taught what is\n self-contradictory.\n\n \u201cSome have supposed that in ascribing physical or natural power to\n men, we deny their _natural depravity_. Through the poverty of\n language, words are obliged to be used in different senses. When we\n speak of men as _by nature_ depraved, we do not mean to convey the\n idea of sin being an essential part of human nature, or of the\n constitution of man as man: our meaning is, that it is not a mere\n effect of education and example; but is from his very birth so\n interwoven through all his powers, so ingrained, as it were, in his\n very soul, as to grow up with him, and become natural to him.\n\n \u201cOn the other hand, when the term _natural_ is used as opposed to\n _moral_, and applied to the powers of the soul, it is designed to\n express those faculties which are strictly a part of our nature as\n men, and which are necessary to our being accountable creatures. By\n confounding these ideas we may be always disputing, and bring nothing\n to an issue.\n\n \u201cFinally, It is sometimes suggested, that to ascribe natural ability\n to sinners to perform things spiritually good, is to nourish their\n self-sufficiency; and that to represent their inability as only\n _moral_, is to suppose that it is not insuperable, but may after all\n be overcome by efforts of their own. But surely it is not necessary,\n in order to destroy a spirit of self-sufficiency, to deny that we are\n men, and accountable creatures; which is all that natural ability\n supposes. If any person imagine it possible, of his own accord to\n chuse that to which he is utterly averse, let him make the trial.\n\n \u201cSome have alleged, that \u2018natural power is only sufficient to perform\n natural things; and that spiritual power is required to the\n performance of spiritual things.\u2019 But this statement is far from\n accurate. Natural power is as necessary to the performance of\n spiritual, as of natural things: we must possess the powers of men in\n order to perform the duties of good men. And as to spiritual power,\n or, which is the same thing, a right state of mind, it is not properly\n a faculty of the soul, but a quality which it possesses: and which\n though it be essential to the _actual performance_ of spiritual\n obedience, yet is not necessary to our being under _obligation_ to\n perform it.\u201d FULLER.\n\nFootnote 101:\n\n _See Vol. 1. page 479, 480._\n\nFootnote 102:\n\n _The former of these is generally styled_, Via ad regnum; _the\n latter_, Causa regnandi.\n\n\n\n\n Quest. XXXIII., XXXIV., XXXV.\n\n\n QUEST. XXXIII. _Was the covenant of grace always administered after\n one and the same manner?_\n\n ANSW. The covenant of grace was not always administered after the\n same manner; but the administrations of it, under the Old Testament,\n were different from those under the New.\n\n QUEST. XXXIV. _How was the covenant of grace administered under the\n Old Testament._\n\n ANSW. The covenant of grace was administered under the Old\n Testament, by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the\n passover, and other types and ordinances, which did all fore-signify\n Christ then to come, and were, for that time, sufficient to build up\n the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they then had\n full remission of sin, and eternal salvation.\n\n QUEST. XXXV. _How is the covenant of grace administered under the\n New Testament?_\n\n ANSW. Under the New Testament, when Christ the substance was\n exhibited the same covenant of grace was, and still is, to be\n administered in the preaching of the word; and the administration of\n the sacraments of Baptism, and the Lord\u2019s Supper, in which, grace\n and salvation is held forth in more fulness, evidence, and efficacy,\n to all nations.\n\nHaving considered the nature of the covenant, in which God has promised\nsalvation to his people, and how his grace is manifested therein, we\nproceed to speak concerning the various dispensations thereof, or the\nway in which God has been pleased, from time to time, to discover and\napply the blessings contained in it, for the encouragement of his people\nto hope for salvation. This he has done, _at sundry times, and in divers\nmanners_, Heb. i. 1. the first method of administration was before\nChrist\u2019s incarnation; the other, in all succeeding ages, to continue to\nthe end of the world. Accordingly we are led to consider,\n\nI. How the covenant of grace was administered under the Old Testament.\nAs God has always had a church in the world, in the earliest ages\nthereof, which has been the seat of his special presence, and been\nfavoured with the displays of his glory; so he has made known, and\napplied to them, the blessings of salvation, or the promises of this\ncovenant, in which they are contained. How he has done this, is\nparticularly considered in this answer; in which there is something\nsupposed, namely, that it was absolutely necessary, for the salvation of\nthe elect, that God should, some way or other, reveal Christ to them, by\nwhom they were to obtain remission of sins; for he was to be the object\nof their faith, as well as the fountain of their blessedness. This he\ncould not have been, unless he had taken some methods to lead the world\ninto the knowledge of his Person, and that work he designed to engage\nin, whereby they, who lived before his incarnation, might be encouraged\nto look for the benefits which he would procure, by what he was to do\nand suffer, in order thereunto. Now, that he has done so, and that the\nmethod which he has taken therein, was sufficient to build up his elect\nin the faith of the promised Messiah, is what we are particularly to\nconsider, and so shall shew,\n\n1. That God revealed Christ, and the blessings of the covenant of grace,\nto his church of old. There were two ways by which he did this; one was\nby express words, or an intimation given from heaven, that the Messiah,\nthe prince of life, should, in the fulness of time, take our nature, and\ndwell among us; and that what he was then to be, and do, should be\nconducive to the salvation of those who lived before his incarnation, as\nmuch as though he had done this from the beginning of the world: the\nother was, by types, or significant ordinances, which are only different\nways of discovering the same important doctrines to them.\n\n(1.) God revealed Christ then to come to the Old Testament church, by\npromises and prophecies; to the end, that though they were not, at that\ntime, to behold him, as manifested in the flesh, they might take a view\nof him by faith, and hereby he might be rendered the object of their\ndesire and expectation, that when he came, it might be no unlooked-for\nevent, but the accomplishment of those promises and predictions that\nrelated thereunto: thus God told Abraham, not only that he should be\nblessed with a numerous off-spring, but that, _in his seed_, that is, in\nthe Messiah, who should descend from him, _all the nations of the earth\nshould he blessed_; he likewise says to Israel, by Moses, _The Lord thy\nGod will raise up unto thee a Prophet, from among thy brethren, like\nunto me; unto him ye shall hearken_, Deut. xviii. 15. and, in following\nages, there were promises and predictions, that gave farther light,\nconcerning the person and offices, the sufferings and glory of the\nMessiah, as it is said, _To him give all the prophets witness_, Acts x.\n43. And the prophet Isaiah is so express, in the account he gives of\nthis matter, that he is styled, by some, the evangelical prophet; what\nhe says, concerning him, is so particular, as though it had been an\nhistory of what was past, rather than a prophecy of what was to come;\naccordingly he foretells, that he should _be born_, or _given_, as a\npublic blessing to the world, and describes him not only as having _the\ngovernment upon his shoulder_, but as having the perfections of the\ndivine nature, which discover him fit for that important trust, when he\nstyles him, _Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting\nFather, the Prince of peace_, Isa. ix. 6. And, as he speaks of his\nbirth, so he intimates, that he should be _born of a virgin_; chap. vii.\n14. and he describes him, in chap. liii. as condescending to bear our\nsins, as standing in our room and stead, designing hereby to make\natonement for them; he speaks of him, as _brought like a lamb to the\nslaughter_, and _cut off out of the land of the living, making his grave\nwith the wicked, and with the rich in his death_, and after this, that\n_he should prolong his days_, and that the consequence hereof should be\nglorious to himself, and of the highest advantage to his people: and he\ndescribes him elsewhere, chap. lxiii. 1, &c. in a most elegant manner as\none triumphing over conquered enemies; _travelling_, or pursuing his\nvictories, _in the greatness of his strength_, and making it appear that\nhe is _mighty to save_.\n\nAnother prophet speaks of him as _a Branch_ that should grow out of the\nroot or stock of David, when it was almost dead and dry, and that he\nshould set up a more glorious throne, and exercise a government over his\npeople in a spiritual way, Jer. xxiii. 5, 6. And the prophet Micah gives\nus an account of the very place of his birth, and speaks of Bethlehem,\nas rendered famous and renowned by his being born therein, _who should\nbe a ruler in Israel_, though otherwise it was _little among the\nthousands of Judah_, Micah v. 2. Another prophet signifies his coming at\nthat time, when God would _shake all nations_, that is, fill the world\nwith civil commotions, and cause it to feel the sad effects of those\nwars, whereby the kingdoms of the world had been dis-jointed, and many\nof them broken in pieces, that then _the desire of all nations should\ncome, and fill his house_, to wit, the second temple, _with glory_, Hag.\nii. 7. And the prophet Daniel speaks of him as the Messiah, or Christ,\nthe character by which he was most known, when he was here on earth, and\ngives a chronological account of the time when he should come, and _be\ncut off, though not for himself_, and hereby _confirm the covenant_, and\nat the same time, _cause the sacrifice and oblation_, that is, the\nordinances of the ceremonial law, _to cease_, and so make way for\nanother dispensation of the covenant, to wit, that which we are under,\nwhich was to succeed in the room thereof.\n\n(2.) The covenant of grace was also administered by the various types\nand ordinances of the ceremonial law, which were all significant signs\nof that grace, that should be displayed in the gospel, which was to be\nobtained by Christ. Many of these types and ordinances were instituted\nbefore the whole body of the ceremonial law was given from mount Sinai.\nThe first we read of was that of sacrifices, which were offered in the\nfirst ages of the world, whereby they had an early intimation given them\nof the blood of the covenant, which should be shed to expiate sin. And,\nafter this, circumcision was instituted, first given to Abraham, as a\nvisible mark, or token, of the covenant, immediately before the birth of\nIsaac, the promised seed, at that time, when God was pleased to enter\ninto covenant with him, Gen. xvii. 9, 10. and this ordinance was\ncontinued in the church, throughout all the generations thereof, till\nour Saviour\u2019s time, and is explained by the apostle, as a sign, or _seal\nof the righteousness of faith_, Rom. iv. 11.\n\nAnother type was the passover, which was first instituted in\ncommemoration of Israel\u2019s departure out of Egypt, which had in it many\nsignificant rites and ceremonies, whereby our redemption, by Christ, was\nset forth; upon which occasion, the apostle calls him _our Passover, who\nis sacrificed for us_, 1 Cor. v. 7. and in allusion hereunto, he is\nstyled, _The Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world_, John\ni. 29.\n\nThere were many other ceremonial ordinances, or types, which God gave to\nthe Jewish nation, which were significant representations of the grace\nthat was to be displayed in the gospel, or, as it is expressed in this\nanswer, they fore-signified Christ then to come, which contained as the\napostle expresses it, _A shadow of good things to come_, Heb. x. 1. so\nthat they all pointed at the grace of the covenant, or the\naccomplishment of what was to be performed by Christ, after his\nincarnation: but this will be more particularly considered, when we\nspeak of the ceremonial law, as distinguished from the moral, under a\nfollowing answer[103]. Therefore, at present, we shall only consider the\ntypes in general, and their reference to the grace of the covenant,\nwhereby the Old Testament church were led into the knowledge of the\nMessiah then to come, together with what he was to do and suffer, to\npurchase and apply the blessings of this covenant to his people. And\nhere we shall shew,\n\n_1st_, That there were typical ordinances under the ceremonial law. This\nwe are obliged to maintain, against those who have advanced several\nthings relating to the origin of the ceremonial law, which tend very\nmuch to divest it of its spirituality and glory[104], when they assert,\nthat all the rites and ordinances thereof were derived from the\nEgyptians; and that they were first observed by them, before known and\nreceived by the church; and that the reason why God accommodated his law\nthereunto, was because he knew how tenacious they were of that religion\nin which that generation had been trained up in Egypt, and how difficult\nit would be for them wholly to lay it aside, and to give into another\nway of worship, which was altogether foreign to it: nevertheless, they\nsay that he cut off, or separated from it, every thing that was\nidolatrous, and adapted other things to that mode of worship, which he\nthought most conducive to his glory. But though he commanded his people,\nwhen they left Egypt, to borrow vessels of silver and gold, to be used\nin that service they were to perform in the wilderness; yet far be it\nfrom us to suppose, that God, in ordaining this law, borrowed any part\nof it from them. It is true, there were rites of worship used by the\nEgyptians, and other nations, which had some affinity with the divine\nlaw, and were received by them in common with other heathen nations, by\ntradition, from the church, in former ages; and it cannot be denied, but\nthat the Israelites sometimes corrupted the worship of God, by\nintroducing some things into it, which were practised by neighbouring\nnations: but God gave no countenance to this matter, by accommodating\nhis law to theirs. But since this has been purposely and largely\ninsisted on, with much learning and judgment, by others[105], I shall\npass it over.\n\nThere are others, who make farther advances on this subject, tending to\noverthrow that which appears to be the main design of the ceremonial\nlaw, together with the spiritual meaning of it; these not only conclude,\nthat the main end of God\u2019s giving it to the Jews, was because it was\nnecessary that there should be some form of worship erected, otherwise\nthey would have invented one of their own, or practised that which they\nhad received from the Egyptians; and the more pompous and ceremonious\nthis form was, and especially the nearer it came to that of neighbouring\nnations, it would more readily be received and complied with: but, that\nthere was no design herein to typify, or shadow forth Christ, or the\nblessings of the covenant of grace; these therefore, were commanded\nduties[106], (whereby the people were to be kept employed,) but not\ntypical ordinances. But it is very strange that any, who have read some\nexplications hereof, occasionally mentioned in the Old Testament, and\nespecially that large comment on the ceremonial law, given by the\napostle, in his epistle to the Hebrews, should embrace this opinion.\n\n_2dly_, Whatever ordinances were typical, they respected Christ, his\nperson, offices, the grace of the covenant, and the way of salvation, by\nhim; therefore I cannot approve of what I occasionally meet with, in\nsome ancient commentators, and other modern writers, who sometimes speak\nof things being typical of other things besides Christ, and what relates\nto the work of redemption by him. Thus some speak of those notorious\nwicked persons mentioned in scripture, as Cain, Pharaoh, and others, as\nthough they were types of the devil; and of Antiochus Epiphanes, as a\ntype of Anti-christ. And others speak of some things as types of\nGospel-ordinances, so they call circumcision a type of baptism, and the\npassover of the Lord\u2019s supper; and several writers, amongst the Papists,\nsuppose, that the bread and wine, that was brought forth by Melchisedek\nto Abraham, was a type of the Eucharist, as they call that ordinance.\nOthers speak of Noah\u2019s being saved in the ark from the deluge, as a type\nof baptism, being mis-led herein by a mistaken sense of the word, used\nby the apostle, when he says, having spoken before of Noah\u2019s being saved\nin the ark, _The like figure whereunto, even baptism, doth also now save\nus_, 1 Pet. iii. 21. &c. whereas the meaning of the Greek word[107] is\nnot that this was a type of baptism, but that it signified, as baptism\nalso doth, that salvation, which we have by Christ.\n\n_3dly_, When we consider what was typified by those ordinances, under\nthe ceremonial law, we must avoid two extremes; namely, that of those\nwho make more types, than the Holy Ghost designed in scripture; and\nothers, who will not acknowledge many things to be types, which plainly\nappear to be so: the former give too great scope to their wit and fancy,\nwhen they reckon every thing to be a type, that may be adapted to\nChrist, and the gospel-state; and accordingly suppose, many persons and\nactions done by them to be typical, which it is hard to prove that they\nwere designed to be, or were looked upon as such by the Old\nTestament-church. Thus it would be a difficult matter to prove that\nSamson (especially in any other respect than as he was a Nazarite) was a\ntype of Christ. But, if it could be proved, that the success he\nsometimes had in his skirmishes with the Philistines, was a type of\nChrist\u2019s victories over his and our enemies; yet it doth not appear,\nthough some have extended the parallel so far, that his carrying the\ndoor and posts of the gate of Gaza to the top of a hill that is before\nHebron, Judges xvi. 3. signifies Christ\u2019s resurrection. But it is\nabominable, when any one supposes, as some have unwarily done, that his\nloving a woman in the valley of Sorek, whose name was Delilah, ver. 4.\nwas a type of Christ\u2019s loving the Gentile church.\n\nBut, because I would not give any occasion to conclude that I have light\nthoughts of the performance of some, who have explained many things,\nwhich they call types, in scripture, with a very honest and good design,\nto lead the world into the knowledge of several great gospel-truths; I\nshall take leave to distinguish between those things, which were plainly\ndesigned, in scripture, to be types, and some other, which, though it\ndoth not appear that they were looked upon as such by the Old\nTestament-church, yet they may be accommodated to illustrate or explain\nsome doctrines contained in the gospel. If any one call these methods of\nillustration, types, because there is some analogy or resemblance\nbetween them and Christ, or the benefits of the covenant, they may\nextend their illustrations as far as they please; I will not contend\nwith them. It is not their saying, that such and such things are\nsimilitudes, by which Christ may be set forth; but their asserting that\nthese similitudes were designed by God, to be ordinances for the faith\nof his church, to lead them into the knowledge of Christ, that I\nmilitate against, when I suppose that some are chargeable with an\nextreme, in extending this matter too far, which, it is certain, many\nhave done.\n\nBut this may give occasion to enquire; when we may determine that a\nthing is designed, by God, to be a type of Christ, and the grace of the\ncovenant? To this I answer,\n\n(1.) As to what respects persons, or, as it is commonly expressed,\npersonal types, though I cannot say, that every one, whose life and\nactions bear a very great resemblance to some things that are remarkable\nin the life of Christ, is a type of him, in any other sense, than, as we\nare led, by the analogy, or resemblance of things, to speak of it, in a\nway of accommodation or illustration; yet we have some directions given\nus, by which we may conclude some persons to be types of Christ; one of\nwhich is, when he is called by their name: thus our Saviour\u2019s being\ncalled David, in several scriptures, Hos. iii. 5. Ezek. xxxiv. 23. and\nDavid\u2019s often speaking in the Person of our Saviour, in several of his\nPsalms, seems to intimate, that he was looked upon, by the church in his\nday, as a type of Christ.\n\nAgain, Moses seems to imply as much concerning himself, when he speaks\nof Christ as _a Prophet, whom the Lord God should raise up from among\ntheir brethren_, and he adds, that he should be _like unto him_, and\nconsequently typified by him, Deut. xviii. 15. and the apostle seems to\nintimate as much, when he compares Moses and Christ together, in point\nof faithfulness, that _the one was faithful as a servant_ in God\u2019s\nhouse, the other as _a Son over his own house_, Heb. iii, 2, 5, 6.\n\nAgain, when any remarkable actions, were done by persons mentioned in\nscripture, which were allowed to be typical, it follows, from thence,\nthat the person, who was appointed to be God\u2019s minister in doing them,\nwas a type of Christ. Thus we may conclude Joshua to have been reckoned,\nby Israel, a type of Christ, in leading them into the land of Canaan,\nupon the same ground that they had to look upon that land, as a type of\nthe gospel-rest, which we are brought to by Christ. And, for the same\nreason, Solomon might be called a type of Christ, as he built the\ntemple, which was reckoned, by the Jews, as a type of God\u2019s presence, in\na way of grace with his people; and there are other passages, that might\nbe referred to in scripture, which farther prove him to be a type of\nChrist.[108]\n\nAnd nothing is more evident, than that the priests, under the law, who\nwere ministers in holy things, and the high priest, in a way of\neminency, were types of Christ; they are so considered in the\nexplication thereof, given in the epistle to the Hebrews; and they\nfarther appear to be so, inasmuch as the church had sufficient ground to\nconclude, that their ministry was typical, or the gifts, or sacrifices\nthat they offered, were types of what was offered by Christ, for our\nredemption. And this leads us,\n\n(2.) To consider those types, which are called real, or things done, as\nbeing ordinances designed to signify the grace of the covenant. These\nwere either occasional, or stated; the former whereof were designed for\ntypes, at those times, when the things were performed. But it doth not\nappear that they were so afterwards, in succeeding ages; as their\n_passing through the red sea_, being _under the cloud_, their _eating\nmanna_ in the wilderness, and _drinking water_ that came _out of the\nrock_. All these things are expressly mentioned, by the apostle, as\ntypes, 1 Cor. x. 1, 3, 4. compared with ver. 11. and we may add thereto\n_the brazen serpent_, which was plainly a type of Christ, and, as such,\nour Saviour applies it to himself, in John iii. 14. But all these were\noccasional types, which were ordinances to the church no longer than the\naction was continued.\n\nAgain, there were other things, which seemed to be standing types, or\nordinances, in all successive ages, till Christ the Antitype came, as\ncircumcision, the passover, sacrifices, and other rites of worship, used\nin the temple service; these things being expressly mentioned, in\nscripture, as types, we have ground to determine them to be so. Thus\nconcerning the covenant of grace, as revealed to the church of old.\n\n2. We are now to consider, that the method which God took in the\nadministration of the covenant of grace, under the Old Testament, was\nsufficient to build up his elect in the faith of the promised Messiah.\nThere were, indeed, many types given to the church, but these would not\nhave led them into the knowledge of Christ, and salvation to be obtained\nby him, unless God had taken some method to explain them; for they had\nnot a natural tendency to signify Christ, and the blessings of the\ncovenant of grace, as words have, according to the common sense thereof,\nto make known the ideas they convey: but their signification was, for\nthe most part, if not altogether, instituted, or annexed to them, by the\ndivine appointment, and many of them had not the least resemblance, in\nthemselves, of what they were ordained to signify; therefore it was\nnecessary that they should be explained. For we may say the same thing\nof a type, that is said of a parable, as they are both figurative\nrepresentations of some less known ideas, that are designed to be\nconveyed thereby; now a parable is styled, by the Psalmist, _A dark\nsaying_, Psal. lxxviii. 2. and, by the prophet Ezekiel, _A riddle_,\nEzek. xvii. 2. and our Saviour, speaking thereof, in this sense, tells\nhis disciples, that _unto them it was given to know the mysteries of the\nkingdom of God, but to others in parables_, Luke viii. 10. and they are\nelsewhere opposed to a plain way of speaking, as when the disciples say,\n_Now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb, or parable_, John\nxvi. 29. as it is rendered in the margin; so when Nathan reproved David\nfor his sin, in the matter of Uriah, he first represented it by a\nparable, taken from _the rich man\u2019s_ robbing _the poor man_ of his\n_ewe-lamb_, which, before he explained the meaning of it, was not\nunderstood by him, 2 Sam. xii. 1-6. But when he told him, _Thou art the\nman_ intended hereby, it was as evident to him, as though he had made\nuse of the most significant words relating to this matter. The same may\nbe said concerning types under the Old Testament dispensation; they\nwould have been unintelligible, had there been no explication annexed to\nthem, whereby the spiritual meaning thereof might be understood. And, if\nwe consider them as a part of religious worship, we cannot suppose that\nthat consisted only in some bodily exercises, such as killing of beasts,\nsprinkling the blood, &c. for that is no part of religion, any otherwise\nthan as it refers to, and leads the faith of those, who are engaged\ntherein, into the knowledge of some things, in which it is more\nimmediately concerned.\n\nBut this argument having been insisted on elsewhere,[109] and the\nnecessity of God\u2019s leading his church into the meaning of the ceremonial\nlaw, having been considered and proved, from the divine goodness, and a\nbrief account having been given of the method which God took to lead\nthem into it, which tends to obviate any objection that might be made\nagainst it we shall only observe, at present, that as there is a very\nclear explication given hereof, in several places in the New Testament,\nso there are some expressions used in the Old, which seem to refer to\nthe spiritual meaning thereof; and, if it be allowed that the church had\nthen the least intimation given them, either by some hints, contained in\nscripture, or by some other methods of revealing it, that there was a\nspiritual meaning affixed thereunto, which it is plain there was, then\nit will follow, that they might easily, from this direction, have\napplied this to particular instances, and have attained a very great\ndegree of the knowledge of the spiritual meaning of these types and\nordinances.\n\nThat this may farther appear, let it be considered, that they were led\ninto several doctrines relating to the Messiah, and the offices that he\nwas to execute as Mediator, by express words, and they must be given up\nto a very great degree of judicial blindness, as the Jews are at this\nday, if they could not understand thereby many of those great truths,\nwhich relate to the way of salvation by Christ. Now, if they were led\ninto them, by this more plain method, they might easily accommodate the\ntypical ordinances thereunto, and accordingly the one would be a key to\nthe other: thus, when they were told of the Messiah\u2019s _bearing the\niniquity_ of his people, as the prophet Isaiah does, or of _the Lord\u2019s\nlaying on him the iniquity of us all_, Isa. liii. 4, 6. they might\neasily understand that the same thing was signified by some rites used\nin sacrificing, as when the priest was to lay his hand on the head of\nthe sacrifice, before he slew it, and its being, upon this occasion,\nsaid _to bear the iniquity of the congregation_, Lev. iv. 4. compared\nwith chap. xvi. 21, 22. therefore they could not be at a loss, as to the\nspiritual meaning thereof. And, when we read elsewhere such expressions,\nas plainly refer to the thing signified, by some ceremonial ordinances,\n_viz._ _The circumcision of the heart_, Deut. xxx. 6. _The calves of the\nlips_, Hos. xiv. 2. _The sacrifice of thanksgiving_, Psal. cxvi. 17. and\nmany other passages of the like nature, it cannot reasonably be supposed\nthat they were wholly strangers to it; and therefore these types and\nordinances were, in an objective way, sufficient to build them up in the\nfaith of the Messiah.\n\nThis being considered, it may very evidently be inferred, from hence,\nthat they had full remission of sins, and eternal life, as it is farther\nobserved; and therefore it is not necessary to suppose, with some of the\nPelagians and Socinians, that they might be saved without the knowledge\nof Christ; nor, with the Papists, that they were incapable of salvation,\ntill Christ came and preached to them after his death, and so discharged\nthem from the prison, in which they were detained; nor with some among\nthe Protestants, who extend the bondage of the Old Testament-church so\nfar, as though they were not fully justified, but lay under a perpetual\ndread of the wrath of God. This we often meet with in the writings of\nmany, who, in other respects, explain the doctrine of the covenant of\ngrace in a very unexceptionable way. And here I cannot but observe, what\nis well known, by those who live in the United Netherlands, that this\nmatter has been debated with so much warmth in those parts, that it has\noccasioned divisions and misunderstandings among divines, who, in other\nrespects, have adhered to, and well defended the doctrines of the\ngospel, against those who have opposed them. The judicious and learned\nCocceius, whom I cannot but mention with the greatest respect, who lived\nabout the middle of the last century, has been, and is now, followed by\nmany divines, in those particular modes of explaining this doctrine,\nwhich he makes use of: his sentiments, indeed, about this matter, were\nnot wholly new; but having written commentaries on several parts of\nscripture, he takes occasion to explain great numbers of texts,\nagreeably to that particular scheme, which he maintains; and while, on\nthe one hand, he runs great lengths, in explaining what he reckons to be\nscripture-types and predictions, and thereby gives great scope to his\nimagination on the other hand, he extends the terror, bondage, and\ndarkness, which the church was under, during the legal dispensation,\nfarther than can well be justified, and advances several things in\ndefending and explaining his scheme, which many divines, who do not give\ninto his way of thinking, have excepted against.\n\nInstead of making but two dispensations of the covenant of grace,\naccording to the commonly received opinion, he supposes that there were\nthree;[110] namely, the first from God\u2019s giving the promise to our first\nparents, immediately after they fell, relating to the seed of the woman,\nthat should break the serpent\u2019s head, to his delivering the law from\nmount Sinai; which dispensation had nothing of terror, or bondage, in\nit, any more than the dispensation which we are under; and he supposes,\nthat the church had clearer discoveries of Christ, and the blessings of\nthe covenant, than they had after Moses\u2019s time. The second dispensation\nwas, that which took place when God gave Israel the law from mount\nSinai, which he generally describes as a yoke, which they could hardly\nbear; and sometimes as a curse, a rigorous dispensation, in which there\nwas a daily remembrance of sin: and the reason of God\u2019s exercising this\nseverity, and shutting them up in a judicial way, under terror,\ndarkness, and bondage, was, because they revolted from him, by\nworshipping the golden calf, a little before the law was given; upon\nwhich occasion, God put a vail upon his ordinances, covered the\nmysteries of the gospel by types, and, at the same time, did not lead\nthem into the meaning thereof, which as was before observed, would have\na tendency to leave them in a state of darkness, as to the great\ndoctrines that were signified by these types and ordinances of the\nceremonial law. And this he supposes to be the meaning of what the\napostle says, concerning the double vail; one put on the things\nthemselves, the other, on the hearts of the Jews; and both these were\ntypified by the vail, which Moses _put over his face_, 2 Cor. iii.\n13-15, and this darkness was attended with distress and terror of\nconscience, whereby they were, as the apostle says elsewhere, _All their\nlife-time subject to bondage_, Heb. ii. 15. which they explain,\nconcerning the church of the Jews, under the legal dispensation. And\nthey add, that all this continued as long as that dispensation lasted,\nor till it was succeeded by the third, _viz._ the gospel-dispensation,\nwhich we are under, whereby the church was delivered from this yoke,\nwhich neither _they, nor their fathers, were able to bear_. But that\nwhich I would take occasion to except against, in this scheme, is,\n\n1. They seem to make the terror, bondage, and darkness, which the church\nwas under, greater than they ought to do; for, I humbly conceive, all\nthose scriptures, which they refer to for the proof hereof, are to be\ntaken, not in an absolute, but a comparative sense. It is one thing to\nsay, that this dispensation was less bright and comfortable, than the\npresent dispensation, which we are under, is; and another thing to say,\nthat it was so dark and comfortless, as they generally represent it to\nbe.\n\n2. I cannot but think, as I have before observed, that the church of\nIsrael had a clearer discerning of the meaning of the ordinances of the\nceremonial law, than these divines would allow them to have had; or, at\nleast, that the vail, that was upon their hearts, principally respected\na part of them, and that in some particular ages, not in every age of\nthe Jewish church; for some of the Old Testament-saints seem to have\ndiscovered a great degree of light in the doctrines of the gospel, as\nappears more especially from several of the Psalms of David, and some of\nthe writings of the prophets.\n\n3. Whatever degree of judicial blindness and darkness the church of the\nJews might be exposed to for sin, it does not so fully appear that this\nwas inflicted as a punishment on them, for worshipping the golden calf\nat the foot of the mount Sinai: but there were several instances of\nidolatry and apostacy from God, that gave occasion thereunto, which,\nwhen they repented of, and were reformed from, the effects of his wrath\nwere taken away; therefore we are not to suppose, that the ceremonial\nlaw was given, at first, as a yoke, or curse, laid on them for this sin\nin particular.\n\n4. We are not to extend the bondage and darkness thereof so far, with\nrespect to any of them, as to suppose, that, under that dispensation,\nthey had not full remission of sin; for the contrary hereto seems to be\ncontained in several scriptures; as when it is said, _Blessed is he\nwhose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered, blessed is the\nman to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity_, Psal. xxxii. 1, 2. and,\n_There is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared_, Psal.\ncxxx. 4. and elsewhere, _Thou, Lord, art good, and ready to forgive, and\nplenteous in mercy, to all that call upon thee; and thou hast forgiven\nthe iniquity of thy people, thou hast covered all their sin_, Psal.\nlxxxvi. 5. and lxxxv. 2. and elsewhere, _Who is a God like unto thee,\nthat pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant\nof his heritage? He retaineth not his anger for ever, because he\ndelighteth in mercy. He will turn again, he will have compassion upon\nus; he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins\ninto the depths of the sea_, Micah. vii. 18, 19.\n\nThese, and such-like scriptures, seem so plainly to overthrow this part\nof their scheme, that they are obliged, in defence thereof, to\nunderstand them all, as containing nothing else, but a prediction of\nthat blessedness, which the New Testament-church should receive, and not\nas a privilege that was enjoyed under the legal dispensation, which I\ncannot but think to be an evasive perversion of the sense of those\nscriptures, but now referred to, and others of the like nature; for it\nis plain that the apostle, referring to one of them, to wit, the words\nof the Psalmist, in Rom. iv. 6. compared with ver. 9. says, that therein\n_David describes the blessedness that cometh not on the circumcision\nonly_, that is, not only on the Jews, _but on the uncircumcision also_,\nthat is, the gospel-church; which is a plain argument, that this\nblessedness, that accompanies forgiveness, was a privilege, that the Old\nTestament-church enjoyed, and not barely a promise of what the New\nTestament-church was to expect: _q. d._ was the Old Testament-church the\nonly blessed persons in enjoying forgiveness? No, says he, as they\nformerly enjoyed it, we who believe, are partakers of the same\nprivilege.\n\nAnd to this we may add, that, in consistency with this scheme, they\nentertain some unwarrantable notions about the justification of the Old\nTestament church. Some say, that it was less full; others, which is a\nmore unguarded way of speaking, that it was less true;[111] and,\nagreeably hereunto, they suppose, that they had no other ideas of the\ndoctrine of justification, but as implying in it the divine forbearance,\nor not punishing sin; though they had a perpetual dread that it would be\npunished at last, and no comfortable sense of the forgiveness\nthereof.[112] But this is certainly an extending the terror and bondage\nof that dispensation farther than we have just ground, from scripture,\nto do, whatever turns they give to several scriptures in defence\nthereof; and therefore we must conclude, as it is observed in this\nanswer, that the Old Testament-church had full remission of sins, as\nwell as eternal salvation.\n\nII. We are now to consider the covenant of grace, as administered under\nthe New Testament, which is the dispensation thereof, that we are under\nand is to continue to the end of the world, which by way of eminency, we\ncall the gospel-dispensation; concerning which it is observed,\n\n1. That it began when Christ, the Substance, was exhibited. He is called\nthe Substance thereof, without any particular limitation of the word;\nand therefore we may understand thereby, either that he was the\nSubstance of the ceremonial law, as all the promises and types thereof\nhad a peculiar reference to him; and, as the apostle says, _To him give\nall the prophets witness_, Acts x. 43. or else he may be considered as\nthe Substance of the New Testament-dispensation, the subject-matter of\nthe ministry of the gospel. Thus the apostle speaks of _Christ\ncrucified_, as the principal thing which _he determined to know_, or\ninsist on, in the exercise of his ministry, and that with good reason,\nsince all gospel-doctrines were designed to lead us to him, and set\nforth his glory, as the Fountain and Author of our salvation, 1 Cor. i.\n23. chap. ii. 2. And both the seals of the new covenant, namely,\nBaptism, and the Lord\u2019s Supper, signify that salvation which we enjoy,\nor hope for, by Christ, our consecration to him, and communion with him:\nthus he is truly styled the substance of both the dispensations of the\ncovenant; the former looked forward, and pointed out Christ to come, as\nthe object of the church\u2019s desire and expectation; the latter represents\nhim as being come, and so the object of our joy and thankfulness, for\nthe blessings which he has procured for us.\n\nAnd this leads us to consider when it was that the New\nTestament-dispensation commenced, which is here said to be upon Christ\u2019s\nbeing exhibited. Christ\u2019s exhibition implies in it, either his public\nappearing when he was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us, or else it has a\nparticular respect to the time when he first entered on his public\nministry and went about doing good, confirming his mission by\nuncontested miracles: this he did immediately after his baptism, whereby\nhe appeared to be the Person, whose coming the prophets had foretold,\nand whom John the Baptist had pointed at, and given the world ground to\nexpect that he would immediately shew himself, in a public manner to\nthem which he did accordingly. This appearing of Christ, was like the\nsun\u2019s rising after a night of darkness, and therefore, in some respects,\nthe gospel-dispensation might be said to begin then; nevertheless, in\npropriety of speaking, it could not be said fully to commence till\nChrist\u2019s resurrection: then it was that the ceremonial law ceased, all\nthe types and ordinances thereof having had their accomplishment in him.\nThus the prophet Daniel speaks first of Christ\u2019s _being cut off_, and\nthereby _confirming the covenant_, and then of the _sacrifice and\noblation\u2019s ceasing_, Dan. ix. 26, 27. and, when that dispensation was at\nan end, the gospel dispensation immediately succeeded it. We are now to\nconsider,\n\n2. How these two dispensations differ. They were, indeed, the same for\nsubstance, both before and since the coming of Christ, as was before\nobserved, when we considered that the covenant of grace, notwithstanding\nthe different dispensations thereof, is but one. And this farther\nappears, in that the blessings promised therein were the same, to wit,\nredemption through the blood of Christ, and compleat salvation by him.\nHe was the Mediator and Fountain of all that happiness which his people\nenjoyed, either before or after his incarnation; nevertheless, the way\nof administering this covenant, under the gospel dispensation, differs\nfrom its former way;\n\n(1.) In that it was, before this, predicted and signified, that Christ\nshould come, and therefore the Old Testament-church waited for his\nappearing; and accordingly they are represented as saying, _Until the\nday break, and the shadows flee away; turn, my beloved, and be thou like\na roe, or a young hart upon the mountains of Bether_, Cant. ii. 17. But\nthe New Testament-church adores and magnifies him, as having appeared\n_to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself_, and fully accomplish the\nwork of our redemption thereby; and, in the preaching of the gospel, he\nis represented as _having abolished death, and brought life and\nimmortality to light_, and done every thing for us that is necessary to\nbring about our redemption. And this is also signified by the sacraments\nof the New Testament, Baptism, and the Lord\u2019s Supper, which, though they\nmay be justly called gospel-types, or external signs of Christ, and the\nblessings of the covenant of grace; yet they differ from the types under\nthe ceremonial law, not only in the matter of them, but in that they\nrefer to the work of redemption, as fully accomplished by him, which the\nceremonial law could not from the nature of the thing, be said to have\ndone.\n\n(2.) The gospel-dispensation differs from the legal, and very much\nexcels it, as grace and salvation is therein held forth in more fulness,\nevidence, and efficacy, to all nations. This is founded on what the\napostle says, 2 Cor. iii. 7-11. when comparing the two dispensations\ntogether, he calls one _the ministration of death_, or _condemnation_,\nand describes it, as that which is now _done away_, which while it\ncontinued, was _glorious_; the other he calls, _the ministration of the\nSpirit_, or _of righteousness_, and speaks of it, as _excelling in\nglory_. Whether the former is styled, _The ministration of death_,\nbecause of the terrible manner in which the law was given from mount\nSinai, upon which occasion the people said to Moses _Let not God speak\nwith us_, in such a way, _any more, lest we die_; or whether it respects\nthe many curses and threatenings, denounced in that dispensation, to\ndeter the people from sin, we will not determine: but it is certain,\nthat the apostle speaks of the gospel-dispensation, as excelling in\nglory, which is the principal thing we are now to consider, and this it\nmight be said to do.\n\n_1st_, As grace and salvation are therein held forth with greater\nclearness, or evidence. This we may truly say without supposing the\nlegal dispensation to be so dark, as that none of the church, in any age\nthereof, could see Christ, and the way of salvation by him, to be\nsignified by any of its types or ordinances. We may observe, that when\nthe apostle speaks of this dispensation, he does not say absolutely that\nit had no glory, but that _it had no glory in this respect by reason\nof_, or compared with, _the glory that excelleth_. Now the\ngospel-dispensation excels the legal, as to its clearness, or fulness of\nevidence, in that the accomplishment of the predictions, or the making\ngood of the promises of redemption and salvation by Christ, affords\ngreater evidence of the truth and reality of these blessings, than the\nbare giving the promises could be said to do; for though one gave them\nthe expectation, the other put them into the actual possession thereof,\nwhen Christ the Substance, was, as was before observed, exhibited, and\nthe ceremonial law had its accomplishment in him.\n\n_2dly_, Under the gospel-dispensation, grace and salvation revealed\ntherein, are attended with greater efficacy; for as the greatest part of\nthe Old Testament-church were not so much disposed, as they ought,\nespecially in some ages thereof, to enquire into, or endeavour to attain\na clearer discerning of the spiritual meaning of the ceremonial\ninstitutions, through the blindness of their minds, and the hardness of\ntheir hearts, so the effect and consequence hereof, was answerable\nthereunto, inasmuch as there was but a small remnant of them, who\nobtained mercy to be faithful, who rejoiced to see Christ\u2019s day, and\nembraced the promises which they beheld afar off; whereas, in the\ngospel-dispensation, _the word of the Lord had free course, and was_\nmore eminently _glorified_ in those places where it was made known: but\nthis will farther appear, if we consider,\n\n_3dly_, That it excelled in glory, in regard of the extent thereof;\nfor it was under this dispensation that that promise was to have its\naccomplishment, that Christ should be _a light to the Gentiles_, and\nGod\u2019s _salvation unto the end of the earth_, Isa. xlix. 6. or that God\nwould _destroy the face of the covering cast over all people, and the\nvail that was spread over all nations_, chap. xxv. 7. It was then that\na commission was given _to preach the Gospel to every creature_, Mark\nxvi. 15. or that Christ should be _preached unto the Gentiles_ and\n_believed on in the world_, 1 Tim. iii. 16. In this respect, the\ngospel-dispensation certainly excelleth in glory, and it is owing\nhereunto that we enjoy, at present, this invaluable privilege. But if\nthis present dispensation be only reckoned the dawn and twilight, or\nthe beginning of that glory that shall be revealed at Christ\u2019s second\ncoming, as grace is sometimes styled glory begun; or if the apostle\u2019s\ndescription of it, when he says, that _we are come unto the heavenly\nJerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general\nassembly and church of the first-born, and to the spirits of just men\nmade perfect_, Heb. xii. 22, 23. contains an intimation, that the\nglory, which still remains to be revealed, is nothing else but the\nperfection of this present dispensation, that we may conclude that it\nfar excelleth all others in glory.\n\nFrom what has been said, in comparing the former, and present\ndispensation of the covenant of grace, we may infer:\n\n[1.] The care of God extended to his church, in all the ages thereof; so\nthat he never left them without the means of grace, which, how various\nsoever they have been as to the matter of them, have yet tended to\nanswer the same end, namely, leading the church into the knowledge of\nChrist.\n\n[2.] We may farther infer the necessity of external and visible worship,\nwhich the church was never wholly destitute of, for then it would have\nceased to have been a church; and also the necessity of divine\nrevelation, as to what respects the way of salvation by Christ; and\ntherefore we must not conclude, that the church was, at any time,\nwithout some beams of gospel-light shining into it, or that they were\nleft, as the Heathen are, _to seek the Lord, if haply they might feel\nafter him_, as the apostle speaks, Acts xvii. 27. or that, before the\ngospel-dispensation commenced, salvation was to be obtained, by adhering\nto the light and dictates of nature, which discovers nothing of the way\nof salvation by Jesus Christ, or of that remission of sin, which is only\nto be obtained through him.\n\n[3.] Christ\u2019s having been revealed to, and consequently known by the Old\nTestament church, as the promised Messiah, may give some light to our\nunderstanding what we often read in the New Testament concerning persons\nbelieving in him, upon his working of miracles, or using some other\nmethods to convince them that he was the Messiah, when, at the same\ntime, we do not read of any particular discovery made to them relating\nto the glory of his Person, and offices, and the design of his coming\ninto the world, which was necessary to their believing him, in a saving\nway, to be the Messiah. Thus when he converted the woman of Samaria, by\nrevealing himself to be _that Prophet_, whom the church expected, when\nhe told her some of the secret actions of her life, she immediately\nbelieved in him, John iv. 18, 19, 29. and many of her fellow-citizens\nbelieved on him, upon the report that she gave them hereof, ver. 39.\nand, when he opened the eyes of the man that was born blind, he only\nasked him this question, _Dost thou believe on the Son of God?_ and then\ndiscovers that he was the Person; and it immediately follows, that _he\nbelieved and worshipped him_, John ix. 35, 37, 38. And there were many\nother instances of the like nature in the New Testament, in which\npersons believed in Christ, before he gave them a particular account of\nhis design in coming into the world, barely upon his working miracles,\nwhich gave them a conviction that he was the Messiah; whereas faith\nsupposes not only a conviction that Christ is the Messiah, but a\nknowledge of his Person, and the offices he was to execute as such. This\nmay very easily be accounted for, by supposing that the Jews had been\nbefore instructed in this matter, and therefore they wanted no new\ndiscoveries hereof; accordingly they believed in him, and worshipped\nhim, as being induced hereunto, by those intimations that were given to\nthem, under the Old-Testament dispensation, that the Messiah, whenever\nhe appeared, would be the Object of faith and worship.\n\n[4.] Since the gospel is more clearly preached under this present\ndispensation, than it was before; this tends to aggravate the sin of\nthose who despise Christ, as revealed therein, as our Saviour says,\n_This is the condemnation that light is come into the world, and men\nloved darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil_, chap.\niii. 19. Before our Saviour\u2019s incarnation, the Old Testament-church\nmight be said to reject the covenant of promise, or not regard the\ngospel contained therein; but, under the New Testament-dispensation,\nsinners reject the covenant of grace, as confirmed, ratified, and\nsealed, by the blood of Christ; and, as the apostle says, _Count the\nblood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and_\ntherefore _are thought worthy of much sorer punishment_, Heb. x. 29.\n\nFootnote 103:\n\n _See Quest._ xcii.\n\nFootnote 104:\n\n _Vid. Spencer. de leg. Hebr. and ejusd. Dissert. de Urim & Thummim; &\n Marshami Can. Chron._\n\nFootnote 105:\n\n _Vid. Witsii Egyptiaca._\n\nFootnote 106:\n\n _Pr\u00e6cepta observanti\u00e6._\n\nFootnote 107:\n\n \u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c4\u03c5\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 108:\n\n _See Psal._ lxii. _the title, compared with the subject-matter of the\n Psalm, which speaks of Christ in the person of Solomon._\n\nFootnote 109:\n\n _See Vol. I. pages 53-56._\n\nFootnote 110:\n\n _The first, he and his followers call_, Oeconomia promissionis, _or_,\n ante-legalis; _the second_, Oeconomia legalis; _the third_, Oeconomia\n evangelica.\n\nFootnote 111:\n\n Minus plena, _or_ minus vera.\n\nFootnote 112:\n\n _For the proof of this, they often refer to that scripture in_ Rom.\n iii. 25. _in which it is said_, Whom God hath set forth to be a\n propitiation, to declare his righteousness, for the remission of sins\n that are past, through, _or after_, the forbearance, of God, _which\n they suppose to contain an intimation of the privilege which the\n gospel-church enjoyed, namely, remission of sins; whereas, under the\n legal dispensation, there was nothing else apprehended by them, but\n the forbearance of God: so that the Old Testament-church had_ \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n \u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd; _the New Testament church_, \u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd; _and they all suppose,\n that they looked upon Christ as_ Fide-jussor, _and not_ Expromissor,\n _which are terms used in the civil law; the former of which signifies\n a person\u2019s undertaking to be a surety, and, at the same time, leaving\n the creditor at his liberty to exact the debt, either of him, or the\n debtor himself; whereas_, Expromissor, _signifies, a person\u2019s\n undertaking to be a surety, in so full and large a sense, as that, by\n virtue hereof, the debtor is discharged. Therefore, since they did\n not, so clearly, know that God would discharge them, by virtue of\n Christ\u2019s undertaking to be a Surety, but concluded that he might exact\n the debt, either of him, or them; this was the foundation of that\n terror and bondage, which they were perpetually subject to._\n\n\n\n\n Quest. XXXVI., XXXVII.\n\n\n QUEST. XXXVI. _Who is the Mediator of the Covenant of Grace?_\n\n ANSW. The only mediator of the covenant of grace is the Lord Jesus\n Christ, who being the eternal Son of God, of one substance and equal\n with the Father, in the fulness of time became man, and so was and\n continues to be God and Man, in two entire distinct natures, and one\n Person for ever.\n\n QUEST. XXXVII. _How did Christ, being God, become Man?_\n\n ANSW. Christ, the Son of God, became Man by taking to himself a true\n body, and a reasonable soul, being conceived by the power of the\n Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance, and\n born of her, yet without sin.\n\nNext to the covenant of grace, and its various administrations, we have,\nin some following answers, an account of the Mediator thereof, who is\nset forth in the glory of his Person; the offices that he executes, and\nthe estate in which he either was, or is, together with those accessions\nof glory, with which he shall perform the last part of his work in the\nclose of time. The first thing to be considered, is the constitution of\nhis Person, as God-man, Mediator; and here,\n\nI. He is set forth as the only Mediator of the covenant of grace. How we\nare to understand his being Mediator, has been already considered[113],\nand it was observed, that he did not make peace, by intreating, that God\nwould remit the debt, without giving that satisfaction, which was\nnecessary to be made, for the securing the glory of the divine justice.\nHerein we militate against the Socinians, who suppose him to be styled a\nMediator, only because he made known unto the world those new laws\ncontained in the gospel, which we are obliged to obey, as a condition of\nGod\u2019s being reconciled to us; and giving us a pattern of obedience in\nhis conversation; and, in the close thereof, confirming his doctrine by\nhis death; and then interceding with God, that, on these terms, he would\naccept of us, without any regard to the glory of his justice, which he\nis no farther concerned about, than by prevailing that it would desist\nfrom the demands which it might have made, and so pardon sin without\nsatisfaction; But this is directly contrary to the whole tenor of\nscripture, which represents him as _giving his life a ransom for many_,\nMatt. xx. 28. upon which account it is said he _made peace through the\nblood of his cross_, Col. i. 20. and that _God brought him again from\nthe dead through the blood of the everlasting covenant_, as the _God of\npeace_, Heb. xiii. 20. and, at the same time, appeared to be a God of\ninfinite holiness and justice, and Christ a Mediator of satisfaction:\nBut this will be farther considered, when we speak concerning his\nPriestly office[114].\n\nThat which we shall, at present, observe is, that he is styled the\n_only_ Mediator: Thus it is said, _There is one Mediator between God and\nmen, The man Christ Jesus_, 1 Tim. ii. 5. In this we oppose the Papists,\nwho greatly derogate from the glory of Christ by pretending that the\nangels, and glorified saints, are mediators of intercession, and that\nthey not only offer up supplications to God in the behalf of men here on\nearth, but with them they present their own merits, as though Christ\u2019s\nredemption and intercession had not been sufficient without them; and\naccordingly a great part of their worship consists in desiring that\nthese good offices may be performed by them, on their behalf, which I\ncannot but conclude to be a breach of the _first_, or, at least, let\nthem put never so fair colours upon it, of the _second commandment_;\nwhich will be farther considered in its proper place.\n\nThe scriptures they bring, in defence of this practice, are nothing to\ntheir purpose. For whenever an angel is said to intercede for men, as it\nis expressed, _The angel of the Lord answered and said, O Lord of hosts,\nhow long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem, and on the cities of\nJudah?_ Zech. i. 12. or to be the object of their prayers, or\nsupplications, as Jacob says, _The Angel which redeemed me from all\nevil, bless the lads_, Gen. xlviii. 16. no other person is intended\nhereby but Christ _the angel of the covenant_. Another scripture, which\nthey bring to the same purpose, is that, in which Moses says, _Remember\nAbraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants_, Exod. xxxii. 13. which they\nmiserably pervert; for Moses does not desire that God would hear the\nprayers that these saints made to him in the behalf of his church; but\nthat he would remember the covenant that he made with them, and so\naccomplish the promises thereof, by bestowing the blessings that his\npeople then stood in need of.\n\nAnd there are two other scriptures that are often cited by the Papists,\nto this purpose, which, they think, can hardly be taken in any other\nsense; one is in Rev. v. 8. where it is said, that _the four beasts, and\nfour and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of\nthem harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of\nsaints_; and the other is in chap. viii. 3. _And another angel came and\nstood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him\nmuch incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints,\nupon the golden altar, which was before the throne_. It must be allowed,\nthat there are many passages, in this book, which are hard to be\nunderstood; but there are none contrary to the analogy of faith, or\nderogatory to the glory of Christ, as the sense they give of these\nscriptures is; and therefore we must enquire, whether they may not be\nunderstood otherwise by us? It is said, indeed, _the four beasts, and\nfour and twenty elders, had golden vials full of odours, which are the\nprayers of saints_; but it is not fully determined whether, by these\n_beasts and elders_, are intended the inhabitants of heaven, or men on\nearth. If it is only an emblematical representation of those prayers\nthat are directed to God from the church in this world, it is nothing to\ntheir purpose. But we will suppose that, by _these beasts and elders_,\nhere spoken of, who _fell down before the Lamb_, are meant the\ninhabitants of heaven: nevertheless, we are not to understand, that they\nare represented as praying for the saints here on earth; for _the golden\nvials full of odours_, are only an emblem of the prayers that are put up\nby the saints here on earth, which God accepts of, or smells a sweet\nsavour in, as perfumed with odours of Christ\u2019s righteousness. This may\nbe illustrated by those political emblems, that are used in public\nsolemnities; such as the coronation of kings, in which the regalia are\ncarried by the prime ministers of state, not to signify that they have\nany branch of kingly dignity belonging to them: but the whole ceremony\nis expressive of his honours and prerogatives, who is the principal\nsubject thereof; so when the heavenly inhabitants are represented, in\nthis vision, in such a way, as they are here described, it only\nsignifies, that the prayers, which are put up by God\u2019s people here on\nearth, through the mediation of Christ, are graciously heard and\nanswered by him.\n\nAs for the other scripture, in which it is said, _Another angel stood at\nthe altar, and there was given him much incense, that he should offer\nit, with the prayers of all saints_, that is generally understood, by\nthose who do not give into this absurd opinion of the Papists, as spoken\nof our Saviour, and then it makes nothing to their purpose, but rather\nmilitates against it. But if it be objected, to this sense of the text,\nthat our Saviour cannot properly be called _another angel_, and\ntherefore it must be meant of one of the created angels; the sense but\nnow given of the foregoing scripture may be accommodated to it, and so\nthe meaning is, this angel, or one of the angels, _stood at the altar\nbefore the Lamb_, and, in an emblematical way, is set forth, as having\nincense put into his hand, which he presents to him; not as offering it\nup for himself, but as signifying that it was for the sake of Christ\u2019s\nmerits, that the prayers of his people, here on earth, ascended with\nacceptance in the sight of God. And it is as though he should say to\nChrist, \u201cThe incense is thine, thou hast a right to the glory thereof;\nand therefore let all know, that this is the only foundation of the\nchurch\u2019s hope, that their wants shall be supplied by thee.\u201d So that this\ndoes not give the least countenance to the Popish doctrine, of there\nbeing other mediators between God and man besides our Lord Jesus Christ.\n\nSome of the Papists, indeed, are sensible that this opinion tends to\ndetract from the glory of our great Mediator, and therefore they chuse\nrather to assert, that the saints and angels are mediators between\nChrist and men, so that we are through their means, to have access to\nhim, and by him, to the Father: but, since Christ not only condescended\nto take our nature upon him, and therein to procure redemption for us;\nbut invited his people to _come to him_; and since it is said, _through\nhim we have an access unto the Father_, Eph. ii. 18. and no mention is\nmade of any, by whom we have access to Christ; and our access to God is\nfounded only in his blood, we have nothing else to do, but, by faith, in\nwhat he has done and suffered to draw nigh to God, as to a Father,\nreconciled to this great and only Mediator.\n\nII. This Mediator is described, as to his Person, as God incarnate, or,\nas it is expressed, the eternal Son of God, of one substance, and equal\nwith the Father, who became Man, and that, in the most proper sense, by\nassuming to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul, which are the\ntwo constituent parts of man. Here we are to consider,\n\n1. The Person assuming the human nature. He is styled the eternal Son of\nGod, of one substance with the Father, and, with respect to his\npersonality, equal with him.[115] This is the same mode of speaking that\nwas used by the _Nicene fathers_, in defence of our Saviour\u2019s divinity\nagainst the Arians, which we have largely insisted on, in our defence of\nthe _doctrine of the ever-blessed Trinity_,[116] and having also\nexplained what we mean by Christ\u2019s Sonship, as referring to his Person\nand character, as Mediator,[117] we shall add no more on that subject at\npresent, but take it for granted, that our Saviour is, in the most\nproper sense, a divine Person, and shall consider him as assuming the\nhuman nature; accordingly we may observe,\n\n(1.) That it was the second Person in the Godhead who was incarnate, and\nnot the Father, nor the Holy Ghost. This we affirm against the\nSabellians, who deny the distinct Personality of the Father, Son, and\nSpirit; and assert that the Father, or the Holy Ghost, might as truly be\nsaid to have been incarnate, as the Son, since their Personality,\naccording to them, is not so distinct, as that what is done by one\ndivine Person, might not be said to have been done by another.[118]\n\n(2.) It follows, from hence, that the divine nature, which belongs in\ncommon to the Father, Son, and Spirit, cannot be properly said to have\nbeen incarnate. It is true, we read, that _God was manifest in the\nflesh_, 1 Tim. iii. 16. and elsewhere, that in him, namely, in the human\nnature, _dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead_, Col. ii. 9. from\nwhence some take occasion to conclude, that the human nature was united\nto the Godhead, or that the Godhead of Christ was said to be incarnate:\nbut if this be asserted, it must be with caution and a distinction. I\ncannot therefore suppose, that the Godhead absolutely considered, but as\nincluding in it the idea of its subsisting in the Person of the Son, was\nincarnate; which is very well expressed, when we say that the human\nnature was united to the second Person in the Godhead, rather than to\nthe Godhead itself.\n\n(3.) Christ being farther considered, as the eternal Son of God; it\nfollows from hence, that he existed before his incarnation, which has\nbeen largely insisted on, under a foregoing answer, in defence of\nChrist\u2019s proper deity. In this we oppose not only the Socinians, who\ndeny that he existed before he was conceived in the womb of the blessed\nVirgin; but also the Arians, especially those of them who take occasion\nto explain, without disguise, or ambiguity of words, what they mean when\nthey speak of him, as being before time, which comes infinitely short of\nwhat is intended by his being styled God\u2019s eternal Son, and so existing\nwith him before time. Thus we have an account of the Person assuming the\nhuman nature.\n\n2. We are now to consider the nature assumed, or united to the divine\nPerson, which was an human nature, consisting of a true body, and a\nreasonable soul; so that as Christ is, in one nature, God equal with the\nFather, in the other he is Man, made, in all the essential properties of\nthe human nature, like unto us. Here we may consider,\n\n(1.) That, since this is a matter of pure revelation, we have sufficient\nground, from scripture, to assert, that our Saviour is both God and Man.\nMany of the scriptures, that have been before referred to, to prove his\ndeity, expressly attribute to him an human, as well as a divine nature,\nand speak of the same Person as both God and Man; as when God styles\nhim, _The Man that is my Fellow_, Zech. xiii. 7. or, when he, who is\n_Jehovah, our righteousness_, is also described as _a branch raised unto\nDavid_, Jer. xxiii. 5, 6. that is, of the seed of David; or, as the\napostle says, he, _who is over all, God blessed for ever, was of the\nfathers concerning the flesh_, or his human nature, Rom. ix. 15.\nMoreover, when we read of the same Person, as styled, _The mighty God_,\nand yet _a Child born unto us, a Son given_, Isa. ix. 6. or of the same\nPerson\u2019s being called _Emmanuel, God with us_, and yet _born of a\nVirgin_, Isa. vii. 14. compared with Matt. i. 23. or, when we read of\nthe _Word\u2019s being made flesh, and dwelling among us_: and elsewhere,\nbeing called _the Son of God, Jesus Christ our Lord_, and yet _made of\nthe seed of David, according to the flesh_, Rom. i. 3. or, _God manifest\nin the flesh_, 1 Tim. iii. 16. These, and many other scriptures, as\nplainly prove him to be man, as they do that he is God.[119] And,\nindeed, the arguments to prove his humanity, taken from thence, are not\nso much contested, as those that respect his proper deity; and\ntherefore, if these scriptures prove him to be God, they contain as\nstrong and conclusive arguments to prove him to be Man, so that the bare\nmention of them is sufficient, especially when we consider, as it cannot\nbe denied, that all these scriptures speak of the same Person;\ntherefore,\n\n(2.) When Christ is said to be both God and Man, it does not imply that\nthere are two Persons in the Mediator; and accordingly it is said, in\nthe answer we are explaining, that though these natures are distinct,\nyet the Person who has them, is but one. This is to be maintained\nagainst those who entertain favourable thoughts of that ancient heresy,\nfirst broached by Nestorius,[120] whose method of reasoning cannot be\nreconciled with the sense of those scriptures, which plainly speak of\nthe same Person, as both God and Man, and attribute the same actions to\nhim in different respects, which is inconsistent with asserting, that\nthe Mediator is both a divine and a human Person; and it cannot be\ndenied but that it is a contradiction in terms, to say, that two Persons\ncan be so united, as to become one. However, it must be acknowledged,\nthat this is one of the incomprehensible mysteries of our religion; and\nwhen divines have attempted to explain some things relating to it, they\nhave only given farther conviction, that there are some doctrines\ncontained in scripture, which we are bound to believe, but are at a loss\nto determine how they are what they are asserted to be.\n\nIf it be objected, that we cannot conceive of an human nature, such an\none as our Saviour\u2019s is that has not its own Personality, since there is\nno parallel instance hereof, in any other men, which I take to be the\nprincipal thing that gave occasion to the asserting, that he had a human\nPerson, as well as a divine;\n\nThe answer that I would give to this objection, is, that though, it is\ntrue, every man has a distinct subsistence of his own, without being\nunited to any other person, yet we have no ground to conclude, that the\nhuman nature of Christ, even in its first formation, had any subsistence\nseparate from the divine nature. Had it been first formed, and then\nunited to the divine nature, it would have had a proper subsistence of\nits own; but, since it was not, its Personality, considered as united to\nthe second Person in the Godhead, is contained therein, though its\nproperties are infinitely distinct from it.\n\n3. These two natures are distinct; united but not confounded. This is\nasserted, in opposition to an old exploded heresy, which was maintained\nby some, who, to avoid the error of Nestorius, and his followers, went\ninto the other extreme,[121] and asserted, that the divine and human\nnature of Christ were confounded, or blended together, after the\nsimilitude of things that are mixed together in a natural or artificial\nway, whereby the composition is of a different nature from the parts of\nwhich it is compounded, by which means they debase his Godhead, and\nadvance his manhood; or rather, instead of supposing him to be both God\nand man, they do, in effect, say, he is neither God nor man. The main\nfoundation, as I apprehend, of this absurd and blasphemous notion, was,\nthat they could not conceive how he could have a divine and human\nunderstanding and will, without asserting, with Nestorius, that there\nwere two persons in the Mediator, whereby they split against one rock,\nwhile endeavouring to avoid another. And to fence against both extremes,\nthe fathers, in the council of Chalcedon, explained the doctrine in\nwords to this purpose: That the two natures of Christ were indivisibly\nand inseparably united, without supposing that one was changed into the\nother, or confounded with it.\n\nTherefore we must consider, that though these two natures are united,\nyet each of them retains its respective properties, as much as the soul\nand body of man do, though united together, which is the best similitude\nby which this can be illustrated, though I do not suppose that, in all\nrespects, it answers it. Thus, in one nature, Christ had all the fulness\nof the Godhead, and in nothing common with us; nothing finite, derived,\nor dependent, or any other way defective. In his other nature, he was\nmade in all things like unto us, sin only excepted: in this nature, he\nwas born in time, and did not exist from all eternity, and increased in\nknowledge, and other endowments, proper thereunto. In one nature, he had\na comprehensive knowledge of all things; in the other, he knew nothing\nbut by communication, or derivation, and with those other limitations\nthat finite wisdom is subject to. In one nature he had an infinite\nsovereign will; in the other, he had such a will as the creature has,\nwhich though it was not opposite to his divine will, yet its conformity\nthereunto was of the same kind with that which is in perfect creatures;\nso that though we do not say that his human will was the same with his\ndivine, as to the essential properties thereof; yet it may be said to be\nthe same, in a moral sense, as conformed thereunto, in like manner, as\nthe will of man is said to be subjected to the will of God.\n\nHad this been duly considered, persons would not have been so ready to\ngive into an error so dangerous and blasphemous, as that which we are\nopposing. And we have sufficient ground, from scripture, to distinguish\nbetween his divine and human understanding and will, inasmuch as it is\nsaid, in one place, speaking of his divine understanding, _Lord, thou\nknowest all things_, John xxi. 17. and of his human, _Of that day and\nhour knoweth no man; no, not the Son_, Mark xiii. 32. and so of his\nwill, it is sometimes represented as truly divine, in the same sense as\nthe Father\u2019s, as when it is said, _As the Father raiseth up the dead,\nand quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will_, John v.\n21. and elsewhere, _If we ask any thing according to his will he heareth\nus_, 1 John v. 14. and, _Him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast\nout_, John vi. 37. And, in other places, he is represented as having an\nhuman will, essentially distinct from the will of God; as when he says,\n_Not my will, but thine, be done_, Luke xxii. 42.\n\n4. The nature that was assumed by the Son of God, is farther described,\nas truly and properly human. It was not an angelic nature; as the\napostle says, _He took not on him the nature of angels_, inasmuch as he\ndid not design to redeem the angels that fell, but he _took on him_ the\nnature _of the seed of Abraham_, Heb. ii. 16. And, this nature is\nfarther described, as consisting of a true body, and a reasonable soul.\n\n(1.) Christ is described as having a true body. This is maintained\nagainst those who, in an early age of the church,[122] denied that he\nhad a real human nature. These, it is true, do not deny his deity; but\nthey suppose, that it was impossible for God to be united to human\nflesh, and therefore that he appeared only in the likeness thereof; as\nsome heathen writers represent their gods, as appearing in human forms,\nthat they might converse with men. Thus they suppose, that the Godhead\nof Christ appeared in an human form, without a real human nature, in\nwhich sense they understand that scripture, _He took upon him the form\nof a servant, and was made in the likeness of men_, Phil. ii. 7. as\nthough, in that place, the similitude of a man were opposed to real\nhumanity; or, at least, they suppose, that he had no other human nature\nwhen he dwelt on earth, than what he had, when he appeared to the\nchurch, under the Old Testament-dispensation, _viz._ to Abraham, Moses,\nJoshua, and several others, in which they conclude, that there was only\nthe likeness of a human body, or an aerial one, which, according to some\ncommon modes of speaking, is called a spirit. To give countenance to\nthis, they bring some other scriptures, as when it is said, after his\nresurrection, that _he appeared in another form to two disciples, as\nthey walked into the country_, Mark xvi. 12. so when he appeared to\nMary, it was in such a form, as that _she knew not that it was Jesus,\nbut supposed him to be the gardener_, John xx. 14, 15. and especially\nwhen it is said, in another scripture, Luke xxiv. 21. when his two\ndisciples at Emmaus _knew him, he vanished out of their sight_;[123]\nwhich they understand of his vanishing, in the same sense, as, according\nto the popular way of speaking, a spectrum is said to do.\n\nBut this opinion is so absurd, as well as contrary to scripture, that it\nonly shews how far the wild and extravagant fancies of men may run, who\nare so hardy, as to set aside plain scriptures, and take up with some\nfew passages thereof, without considering their scope and design, or\ntheir harmony with other scriptures. And, indeed, there is scarce any\nthing said concerning him in the New Testament, but what confutes it;\nwhere we have an account of him, as being born, passing through all the\nages of life, conversing familiarly with his people, eating and drinking\nwith them, and, at last, dying on the cross, which put this matter out\nof all manner of dispute; as also when he distinguishes himself from a\nspirit, when the disciples were terrified upon his standing unexpectedly\nin the midst of them, supposing that he had been a spirit, he satisfies\nthem that they were mistaken, by saying, _Behold my hands and my feet,\nthat it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and\nbones, as ye see me have_, Luke xxiv. 29.\n\nAs for those scriptures in the Old Testament, which speak of his\nappearing in a human form, assumed for that purpose; whether there was,\nin every one of those instances, a real human body that appeared,\nthough, in some of them, it is beyond dispute that there was, I will not\npretend to determine; yet it must be considered, that this is never\nstyled his incarnation, or becoming man, but it was only an emblem, or\nprelibation thereof; and when it is said, in the scripture before\nmentioned, that he was made in the _likeness of men_, it does not from\nhence follow, that he was not, after his incarnation, a real man, for\nthe _likeness of man_ is oftentimes so understood in scripture; as when\nit is said, on occasion of the birth of Seth, that _Adam begat a son in\nhis own likeness_, Gen. v. 3. And as to that other scripture, in which\nChrist is said to appear in different forms, it is not to be supposed\nthat there was a change in his human nature, but only a change in his\ncountenance, or external mein; or he appeared with other kind of\ngarments, which rendered him not immediately known by them. And when, in\nthe other scripture, it is said, he _vanished out of their sight_,\nnothing is intended thereby, but an instantaneous withdrawing of himself\nfrom them, which, it may be might contain something miraculous.\n\n(2.) Christ is farther described, as having taken to himself a\nreasonable soul, to which his body was united. This is maintained\nagainst the Arians, who deny that he had an human soul, concluding that\nthe divine nature, such an one as they will allow him to have, was, as\nit were, a soul to his body; which is founded partly on their\nmisunderstanding the sense of those scriptures, in which it is said,\n_The Word was made flesh_, John i. 14. and _God was manifest in the\nflesh_, 1 Tim. iii. 16. and, _Forasmuch as the children are partakers of\nflesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same_, Heb.\nii. 14. and, _Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came_, &c. Rom.\nix. 5. But the principal argument, by which this opinion is supported,\nis, because they suppose, that, if he had an human soul, distinct from\nhis divine nature, he must have had two understandings and wills, to\nwit, a divine and an human, and then it would have been possible for him\nto have had contrary ideas in his mind, and determinations in his will,\nas man, to what he had as God, which would infer a sort of confusion of\nthought, and irregularity of actions: but to this it may be answered,\n\n_1st_, As to the former, relating to his assuming flesh, it is a very\ncommon thing, in scripture, by a _synecdoche_, of the part for the\nwhole, for _flesh_ to signify the whole man, consisting of soul and\nbody, of which we have many instances in scripture; as when it is said,\n_All flesh had corrupted his way_, Gen. vi. 12. that is, all men had\ncorrupted their way; and the prophet speaking concerning the vanity of\nman, as mortal, says, _All flesh is grass_, Isa. xl. 6.\n\n_2dly_, As to the other branch of their argument; we allow that Christ,\nas Man, had a distinct understanding and will, from what he had as God,\nand that his human understanding was not equally perfect with his\ndivine, neither had his human will the sovereignty and glory of his\ndivine will. And, if it should be also allowed, that if his human\nunderstanding and will had not always been under the influence and\ndirection of his divine, he might have had contrary ideas, and\ndeterminations, as man, to what he had as God; yet we cannot allow that\nthe divine nature would so far suspend its direction and influence, as\nthat his human understanding should have contradictory ideas to his\ndivine, so that this inconvenience should ensue, which would occasion a\nconfusion and disorder in his actions, or methods of human conduct. It\nwas no disparagement to him, nor hindrance to his work, to suppose that\nhis human soul was subject to some natural imperfections, which were\ninconsistent with the infinite perfection of his deity; however, it is\nsufficient to assert, that, as Man, he knew every thing, which he was\nobliged to perform, in a way of obedience, and consented to, and\ndelighted in every thing that was agreeable to his divine will, which\nwould render his obedience compleat; though we suppose, that the nature,\nin which he performed it, was less perfect than that to which it was\nunited; therefore this method of reasoning is not conclusive, and we\nmust suppose, that he had a human soul, distinct from his divine nature.\nThis is evident, because he could not perform obedience in the divine\nnature, his human soul being the only subject thereof, and it is proper\nto the deity to be dispassionate; therefore those sinless passions which\nhe was subject to, were seated in his soul, as united to the body; and\nthat he had such passions, is very plain from scripture; for he says,\n_My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death_, Matt. xxvi. 38. And\nthere are various other passions besides sorrow, which he was subject\nto, which, though free from sin, were altogether inconsistent with the\ninfinite perfection of the divine nature.\n\n9. This human nature is said to have been conceived by the power of the\nHoly Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and born of her, yet without\nsin. Here we may observe,\n\n(1.) That there was something in the formation of Christ\u2019s human nature,\nin which he resembled the rest of mankind, in that he was not produced,\nand brought into a state of manhood in an instant, or created out of the\ndust of the ground, as Adam was, but was born, or as the apostle\nexpresses it, _made of a woman_, Gal. iv. 4. to denote his being formed\nout of her substance; and accordingly he began his state of humiliation\nin infancy, that he might, in all respects, be made like unto those whom\nhe came to redeem. Herein the promise made to our first parents,\nrelating to his being _the seed of the woman_, Gen. iii. 15. was not\nonly fulfilled; but another express prediction, by the prophet Isaiah,\nwho says, _Unto us a Child is born_, Isa. ix. 6.\n\n(2.) There was something peculiar and extraordinary in his formation, as\nhe was an extraordinary Person, and to be engaged in a work peculiar to\nhimself; so he is said to have been born of a Virgin, not because, as\nsome suppose, that that is a state of greater sanctity, than any other\ncondition of life, but, as was before observed[124], that he might be\nexempted from the guilt of Adam\u2019s first sin, which he would have been\nliable to, though sanctified from the womb, had his human nature been\nformed in an ordinary way. It was certainly necessary that his human\nnature, which was, in its first formation, united to his divine Person,\nshould be perfectly sinless; since it would have been a reproach cast on\nthe Son of God, to have it said concerning him, that he was, in the\nnature which he assumed, estranged to, and separate from God, as all\nmankind are, who are born in an ordinary way. And this was also\nnecessary for his accomplishing the work of our redemption, since as the\napostle says, _Such an High Priest became us, who is holy, harmless,\nundefiled, and separate from sinners_, Heb. vii. 26. And, in order to\nhis being born of a Virgin, there was an extraordinary instance of the\npower of God; and therefore it is said, _The Holy Ghost shall come upon\nthee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee_, Luke i. 35.\n\nHis being born of a Virgin, was an accomplishment of that prediction\nwhich we read of in Isa. vii. 14. _The Lord himself shall give you a\nsign; Behold, a Virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call\nhis name Immanuel_. This text being so convincing a proof of\nChristianity, and, as such, referred to in the New Testament, Matt. i.\n22, 23. the Jews, and many of the modern Deists, have endeavoured to\nweaken the force thereof, which renders it necessary for us to\nillustrate and explain it, agreeably to the scope and design of the\nprophecy, contained in the context; which we shall endeavour to do, in\nthe following Paraphrase. Says God to the prophet, \u201cGo to Ahaz, and bid\nhim not be faint-hearted, by reason of the threatened invasion by the\nconfederate kings of Israel and Syria; but let him ask a sign for the\nconfirmation of his faith, that I may hereby assure him, that they shall\nnot be able to do him any hurt: but I know, before-hand, his unbelief,\nand the sullenness of his temper, that he will refuse to ask a sign;\ntherefore, when thou goest to meet him, take thy young son Shear-jashub\nin thine hand, or in thine arms, from whom thou mayest take occasion to\ndeliver part of the message which I send thee with to him; tell him,\nthat though he refuse to ask a sign, _nevertheless_[125], _the Lord\nshall give thee a sign_, to his people, whom thou shalt command to hear\nthis message, as well as Ahaz, they being equally concerned herein;\ntherefore let them know, that, though their obstinate and wicked king\ncalls a compliance with my command a _tempting_ me, and therefore will\nnot ask a sign, I will not give him any other sign, than what the whole\nhouse of Israel shall behold, in future ages, which, though it cannot be\nproperly called a prognostic sign, yet it will be, when it comes to\npass, a _rememorative sign_[126], and that shall be a glorious one; for,\n_Behold a Virgin_[127] _shall conceive, and bear a Son, and thou shalt\ncall his name Immanuel_. When this wonderful thing happens, a thing new\nand unheard of, which shall be _created in the earth, that a woman\nshould compass a man_, as it is said elsewhere, Jer. xxxi. 22. then the\nhouse of David shall understand the reason why I have not suffered these\ntwo kings to destroy Judah, so that it should be _broken, that it be not\na people_, as _Ephraim shall, within threescore and five years_, [ver.\n8.] for then the Messiah could not come of the house of David; and what\nhe shall do for them, when he comes, is the ground and reason of all the\ntemporal deliverances that I work for them, and particularly of this\nfrom the intended invasion of these two confederate kings. Tell them,\nmoreover, that as this shall be a _rememorative sign_, so I will give\nthem to understand, at present, that they shall be delivered in a little\ntime; for before this Child, which thou hast here brought with thee,\n_shall know to refuse the evil, and chuse the good_, or shall know the\ndifference between moral good and evil, that is, in two or three years\ntime, _The land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her\nkings_; or those two kings, which thou dreadest, shall be driven, by the\nking of Assyria, out of their own land. And inasmuch as my people may be\nafraid, that, before these two years are expired, they shall be brought\ninto such straights, through famine, or scarcity of provisions, which\ngenerally attend sieges, that they shall want the necessaries of life;\nlet them know that this child, meaning Shear-jashub, shall not want\n_butter and honey_, that is, the best and most proper food for it, _that\nhe may know_, or rather, _until_[128] _he know to refuse the evil, and\nchuse the good_, that is, till these two kings, Rezin and Pekah, be\nutterly destroyed.\u201d\n\nThus having considered our Saviour\u2019s being born of a Virgin, there is\none thing more that is to be observed under this head, namely, that he\nwas of her substance, which is particularly mentioned in this answer,\nwith a design to fence against an ancient heresy, maintained by the\nGnostics in the second century, and hath been defended by others, in\nlater ages, who supposed, that our Saviour did not derive his human\nnature from the Virgin Mary, but that it was formed in heaven, and sent\ndown from thence; and that the Virgin\u2019s womb is only to be considered as\nthe first seat of its residence in this lower world, which they found on\nthose scriptures which speak of _his coming down from heaven_, John iii.\n13, 14. which they understand concerning his human nature; whereas,\nnothing is intended thereby but the manifestative presence of his divine\nnature, in which respect God is, in other scriptures, said to _come\ndown_ into this lower world, Gen. xi. 5, 7. And another scripture, which\nthey bring to the same purpose, is that, in which, they suppose, he\ndenies his relation to his mother, when he says, _Who is my mother? and\nwho are my brethren? Whosoever shall do the will of my Father, which is\nin heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother_, Mat. xi. 48,\n50. in which he does not deny his natural relation to them, but designs\nto shew, that his regard to persons in the exercise of his public\nministry, was principally founded on their doing the will of his Father.\nAnd whereas they farther suppose, that if his human nature had, in any\nrespect, been derived from the substance of the Virgin, either she must\nbe concluded immaculate, as the Papists do, or else he must have been\nborn a sinner; this hath been already proved to be no just consequence,\ninasmuch as the formation of his human nature, though it were of the\nsubstance of the Virgin, was in an extraordinary and miraculous way,\nwhereby he was exempted from the guilt of original sin.\n\nThere is another opinion maintained by some of the school-men, which,\nthough it be not generally received, seems, to me, not altogether\nimprobable, namely, that Christ\u2019s human body, though formed in the womb\nof the virgin, and a part of her substance, yet, as to the manner of its\nformation, it differed from that of all other human bodies, inasmuch as\nthe matter, of which they consist, receives its form in a gradual way,\nand they cannot properly speaking be styled human bodies, till organized\nand fitted to have their souls united to them; whereas these suppose\nthat the body of Christ, in its first formation, was rendered fit to\nreceive the soul, which was, in an instant united to it; and both soul\nand body, at the same time, without having any separate subsistence,\nwere united to the divine nature. This account of the formation of\nChrist\u2019s human body, though I think it most adapted to the union of his\nsoul and body with the divine nature, in the very instant of its\nformation, and therefore cannot but conclude it a more probable\nconjecture than what is generally received, yet I do not lay it down as\na necessary article of faith; nor would I, from hence, be supposed to\ndeny that the body of Christ grew in the womb like other human bodies,\nafter the soul is united to them; nor would I set aside the account the\nscripture gives of the virgin\u2019s _accomplishing_ the full number of\n_days, in which she should be delivered_, Luke ii. 6. Gal. iv. 4. Thus\nwe have considered our Saviour, as having a true body and a reasonable\nsoul, and both united to the divine nature, whereby he is denominated\nGod incarnate, in this answer.\n\n6. Our Mediator is farther said to have been incarnate, in the fulness\nof time; and it is added, he shall continue to be both God and man for\never.\n\n(1.) Let us consider what is meant by Christ\u2019s becoming man in the\nfulness of time. The human nature could not be united to the divine from\nall eternity; since it is inconsistent with its being a created nature,\nthat it should exist from eternity; notwithstanding he might, had it\nbeen so determined, have, assumed this nature in the beginning of time,\nor immediately after the fall of man, who then stood in need of a\nMediator; but God, in his sovereign and wise providence, ordered it\notherwise, namely, that there should be a considerable distance of time\nbetween the fall of man and Christ\u2019s incarnation, in order to his\nrecovery, which is called, in scripture, the _fulness of time_, Gal. iv.\n4. that is, the time foretold by the prophets, and particularly Daniel,\nDan. ix. 24, 25. whose prediction had an additional circumstance of time\nannexed to it, which gave occasion to the Jews to expect his coming at\nthe same time that he was incarnate.\n\nThat there was an universal expectation of the Messiah at this time,\nappears from the disposition of many among them to adhere to any one,\nespecially if he pretended himself to be a prophet, or that he would\nmake some change in their civil affairs; and the Jewish historian[129]\ntells us of many tumults and seditions that were in that age. Some of\ntheir ring-leaders he styles magicians; and persons pretending to be\nprophets, though, indeed, he does not expressly say that they assume the\ncharacter of Messiah, yet he observes, that the time in which this was\ndone, gave occasion hereunto[130]; by which he means that it being at\nthat time that the Jews expected that the Messiah, their king, should\ncome, they thought it a fit opportunity to make these efforts, to shake\noff the Roman yoke; and they were so far from concealing the expectation\nthey had thereof, that it was well known by the heathen, who were not\nwithout jealousies concerning them, with respect to this matter; so that\nsome celebrated writers among them observe, that it was generally\nreceived throughout the east, according to some ancient predictions,\nthat, at that time, the Jews should obtain the empire;[131] and there\nare several expressions, in scripture, which intimate as much: thus\nGamaliel speaks of one Theudas, who _boasted himself to be somebody_, by\nwhich, it is probable, he means the Messiah, _to whom a number of men,\nabout four hundred, joined themselves, and were slain_, Acts v. 36, 37.\nwhich some think to be the same person that Josephus mentions, the name\nbeing the same; though others are rather inclined to think that it was\nanother pretender to this character, from some critical remarks they\nmake on the circumstance of time referred to by Gamaliel, being\ndifferent from that which is mentioned by Josephus.[132] However, this\ndoes not affect our argument; for it is plain, from hence, that, about\nthat time, the Jews were disposed to join themselves to any one who\nendeavoured to persuade them that he was the Messiah.\n\nAnd this farther appears, from what our Saviour says, _All that ever\ncame before me, are thieves and robbers_, John x. 8. by which,\ndoubtless, he means, several that pretended to be the Messiah, in that\nage, before he came; and it is said elsewhere, Luke xix. 11. a little\nbefore our Saviour\u2019s crucifixion, that _they_, that is, the Jews,\ngenerally _thought that the kingdom of God_, and consequently the\nMessiah, whom they expected, _should immediately appear_; and he also\nforetels, that between this and the destruction of Jerusalem, that is,\nbefore that age was at an end, _many false Christs, should arise_, and\nwarns his followers not to adhere to them, Mat. xxiv. 24-26.\n\nMoreover, had not the Jews expected that the Messiah would appear at\nthat time, they would never have sent in so formal a manner, as they are\nsaid to have done, to enquire, _Whether John the Baptist_, when he\nexercised his public ministry amongst them, _was he_? John i. 19-21.\nAnd, when he had convinced them that he was not the Messiah, but that\nour Saviour would soon appear publicly amongst them, who had the only\nright to this character, he found it no difficult matter to persuade\nthem to believe it; and accordingly Jerusalem and all Judea, that is,\nthe people almost universally attended on his ministry, and were\nbaptized, making a profession of this faith, and of their expectation\nof, and willingness to adhere to him; and it was the report, that the\nwise men, who came from the east, had received from the Jews, who were\nconversant with them, that this was the time that the Messiah should\nappear, that brought them to Jerusalem, from their respective countries,\notherwise that preternatural meteor, or star, which they saw, could not\nhave given them a sufficient intimation concerning this matter, so as to\ninduce them to come and pay their homage to him; and when they came, and\nenquired of Herod, _Where is he that is born king of the Jews_? how\nsurprizing soever it might be to that proud tyrant, to think that there\nwas one born, who, as he supposed, would stand in competition with him\nfor the crown, yet it was no unexpected thing to the Sanhedrim, whose\nopinion in this matter he demanded, in an hypocritical manner; therefore\nthey say, he was _to be born in Bethlehem_, according to the prediction\nof the prophet Micah; whereas, if they had not known that this was the\ntime in which he was to be born, they would have replied, that it was an\nunseasonable question, and a vain thing, to ask where a person was to be\nborn, whose birth was not expected in that age; and they might easily\nhave satisfied Herod, and removed the foundation of his jealousy and\ntrouble, and thereby have prevented that inhuman barbarity committed on\nthe infants of Bethlehem, if they had told him that the time spoken of\nby the prophet Daniel, in which the Messiah was to be born, was not yet\ncome: but they knew otherwise; and in this respect, Christ might be said\nto be born _in the fulness of time_. That which we shall farther\nobserve, concerning it, is,\n\n_1st_, That it was at that time when God had sufficiently tried the\nfaith of the Old Testament-church, in waiting for his coming, and\nthereby glorified his sovereignty, who hath the times and seasons of his\nbestowing all blessings in his own power.\n\n_2dly_, It was at that time when the measure of the iniquity of the\nworld was abundantly filled, whereby his people might observe the\ndeplorable state into which sin had brought mankind, and the utter\nimpossibility of our recovery without a Mediator, and that the light of\nnature could not discover any method by which the redemption and\nsalvation of man might be brought about.\n\n_3dly_, It was at that time that the Jewish church was at the lowest\nebb, and therefore the most seasonable time, and they were laid under\nthe highest obligations to adore and magnify him: their political state\nwas broken, the sceptre departed from Judah, and they were brought under\nthe Roman yoke, which sat very uneasy upon them; neither could they ever\nexpect to make that figure in the world as they once had done, therefore\nnow was the time for the Messiah to come, and erect his kingdom. And,\nbesides this, they were given up to a very great degree of judicial\nblindness and hardness, and were disposed to make void the law of God by\ntheir traditions; so that religion, among them, was at a very low ebb;\ntherefore it was the fittest time for God to display his grace, in\nreviving his work, and preventing his cause and interest from wholly\nsinking in the world. This was the time in which the Son of God became\nMan.\n\n(2.) Christ shall continue to be God and Man for ever, or the union of\nthese two natures is indissoluble: as to his divine nature, he is\nnecessarily eternal and unchangeable; and the human nature shall\ncontinue for ever united to it, as the result of the divine purpose, in\nwhich God intends that some ends, glorious to himself, honourable to the\nMediator, and advantageous to his people, should be attained thereby.\nFor,\n\n_1st_, If he had had a design to lay aside his human nature, he would\nhave done it when he finished his work of obedience and sufferings\ntherein, and thereby had so far answered the end of his incarnation,\nthat nothing more was necessary for the purchase of redemption: but when\nhe rose from the dead, as a Conqueror over death and hell, and was\ndeclared to have accomplished the work he came into the world about, it\nis certain he did not lay it aside, but ascended visibly into heaven,\nand shall come again, in a visible manner, in that same nature, to judge\nthe world at the last day.\n\n_2dly_, The eternity of Christ\u2019s human nature appears from the eternity\nof his mediatorial kingdom, of which more under a following answer, when\nwe come to speak concerning the glory of Christ\u2019s kingly office. It\nappears, also, from the eternity of his intercession, which, as the\napostle expresses it, _He ever liveth to make_, Heb. vii. 25. for his\npeople: thus he does, by appearing in the human nature in the presence\nof God, in their behalf; therefore he must for ever have an human\nnature.\n\n_3dly_, His saints shall abide for ever in heaven, and, as the apostle\nsays, _Shall ever be with the Lord_, 1 Thess. iv. 17. and their\nhappiness shall continue both as to soul and body; and, with respect to\ntheir bodies, it is said, they shall be _fashioned like unto Christ\u2019s\nglorious body_, Phil. iii. 21. therefore his glorious body, or his human\nnature, shall continue for ever united to his divine Person.\n\n_4thly_, His retaining his human nature for ever, seems necessary, as it\nredounds to the glory of God: it is an eternal monument of his love to\nmankind, and an external means to draw forth their love to him, who\nprocured those mansions of glory, which they shall for ever be possessed\nof, by what he did and suffered for them therein.\n\nFootnote 113:\n\n _See Page 379._ Vol. I.\n\nFootnote 114:\n\n _See Quest._ xliv.\n\nFootnote 115:\n\n _See Vol. I. Page 243._\n\nFootnote 116:\n\n _See Quest._ ix, x, xi.\n\nFootnote 117:\n\n _Vide the note, Vol. I. Page 279._\n\nFootnote 118:\n\n _For this reason, the Sabellians are often called, by ancient writers,\n Patripassians._\n\nFootnote 119:\n\n _See the same scriptures, and others to the like purpose, before\n cited, for the proof of Christ\u2019s proper deity, under Quest._ ix. x.\n xi. _Vol. I. Page 302, to 319, and also what has been said concerning\n his Sonship, as implying him to be God-man Mediator. Vol. I. Page 274,\n 279, &c._\n\nFootnote 120:\n\n _Nestorius was Bishop of Constantinople, in the reign of Theodosius,\n the younger, A. D. 428. who very warmly maintained, that the Virgin\n Mary was not the mother of that Person that was God, but of a distinct\n human Person, called Christ, which was censured and condemned by the\n council at Ephesus, A. D. 431._\n\nFootnote 121:\n\n _These are called Eutychians, from Eutyches, an abbot of\n Constantinople, who, when he had gained a great deal of reputation, in\n disputing against Nestorius, in the council at Ephesus, a few years\n after, viz. A. D. 448. propagated his opinion, which was condemned, as\n heretical, in the council at Chalcedon, A. D. 451._\n\nFootnote 122:\n\n _This absurd opinion, subversive of Christianity, was propagated by\n several among the Gnosticks, in the second century, who, for this\n reason, were called Docet\u00e6._\n\nFootnote 123:\n\n \u03b1\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf.\n\nFootnote 124:\n\n _See Page 112 ante._\n\nFootnote 125:\n\n _So the Hebrew word ought to be rendered, rather than_ therefore; _for\n so it is understood in other scriptures, particularly in Jer._ xxx.\n _16._\n\nFootnote 126:\n\n _This is a just distinction relating to signs mentioned in scripture;\n in which, sometimes a sign did not take place till the thing\n signified, or brought to remembrance thereby, had been accomplished.\n See Exod._ iii. _12. 1 Sam._ ii. _34. Isa._ xxxvii. _30. Jer._ xliv.\n _29, 30. as Bishop Kidder well observes. See Demonstrat. of the\n Messias, Part II. page 105, in Fol._\n\nFootnote 127:\n\n _The Hebrew word_ \u05e2\u05dc\u05de\u05d4 _is truly rendered_ a Virgin, _as it is\n translated by the LXX._ [\u03b7 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2] _who well understand the sense of\n it, in this and other places, where we meet with it; as also doth the\n Chaldee Paraphrast thus understand it, and the Syriac, Arabic, and\n vulgar Latin versions: and this sense agrees with the grammatical\n construction of the word, which is derived from_ \u05e2\u05dc\u05dd abscondit, _and\n it alludes to the custom used among the Jews of keeping their virgins\n concealed till they were married; therefore as a learned writer well\n observes_, \u05e2\u05dc\u05de\u05d4 Notat statum solitarium domi delitescentium ideoq;\n c\u00e6lebum & virginum; _and in those two places, in which it is objected\n by the Jews, that the word does not signify_ a virgin, _but a_ young\n woman, _namely, Prov._ xxx. _19 and Cant._ vi. _8. In the former, as\n one observes_, Promptissimum est intelligere vincula amoris quibus\n virgo incipit adstringi futuro sponso suo; _and therefore it may be\n understood of a virgin, in the literal sense of the word. Vid. Cocc.\n Lexic. in Voc. The LXX. indeed, render it_, \u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03bd \u03bd\u03b5\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9, _and\n the vulgar Latin version_, Viri in adolescentia; _but the Chaldee\n Paraphrast renders it_, Viri in virgine. _And as for the later\n scripture, in which it is said, there are_ threescore queens, and\n fourscore concubines, and virgins without number, _it is plain, the\n word_ virgins _is not opposed to_ young women, _for such were many of\n them that are called_ queens and concubines, _but to persons\n defloured; therefore we may conclude, that the word always signifies a\n virgin, and therefore is rightly translated in the text, under our\n present consideration_.\n\nFootnote 128:\n\n _So the word is properly rendered by the Chaldee Paraphrast._\n\nFootnote 129:\n\n _See Joseph. Antiq. Lib. XVIII. cap. 1. & Lib. XX. cap. 2. & de Bell.\n Jud. Lib. II. cap. 6._\n\nFootnote 130:\n\n \u0392\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03bf \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, \u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5.\n\nFootnote 131:\n\n _Vid. Sueton in Vespas. Percrebuerat oriente toto, ventus & constans\n opinio, esse in fatis; ut eo tempore Judea, profecti, rerum\n potirentur; & Tacit. Histor. Lib. V. Pluribus persuasio inerat,\n antiquis sacerdotum literis contineri, eo ipso tempore fore ut\n valesceret, Oriens, profectiq; Judea rerum potirentur._\n\nFootnote 132:\n\n _See Lightfoot\u2019s works, Vol. I. Pag. 765, 766._\n\n\n\n\n Quest. XXXVIII., XXXIX., XL.\n\n\n QUEST. XXXVIII. _Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be\n God?_\n\n ANSW. It was requisite that the Mediator should be God, that he\n might sustain and keep the human nature from sinking under the\n infinite wrath of God, and the power of death, give worth and\n efficacy to his sufferings, obedience, and intercession; and so\n satisfy God\u2019s justice, procure his favour, purchase a peculiar\n people, give his Spirit to them, conquer all their enemies, and\n bring them to everlasting salvation.\n\n QUEST. XXXIX. _Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be\n Man?_\n\n ANSW. It was requisite that the Mediator should be Man, that he\n might advance our nature, perform obedience to the law, suffer, and\n make intercession for us in our nature, have a fellow-feeling of our\n infirmities, that we might receive the adoption of sons, and have\n comfort and access with boldness unto the throne of grace.\n\n QUEST. XL. _Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be God and\n Man in one Person?_\n\n ANSW. It was requisite that the Mediator, who was to reconcile God\n and Man, should himself be both God and Man, and this in one Person,\n that the proper works of each nature might be accepted of God for\n us, and relied on by us, as the works of the whole Person.\n\nOur Mediator having been considered as God and Man, in one person, we\nhave a farther account of the necessity of being so. And,\n\nI. It was necessary that he should be a divine Person, for several\nreasons here assigned, with others that may be added. As,\n\n1. If he had not been God, he could not have come into the world, or\nbeen incarnate, and have had the guilt of our sins laid on him, with his\nown consent; for he could not have been a party in the everlasting\ncovenant, in which this matter was stipulated between the Father and\nhim; and, had he not consented to be charged with the guilt of our sin,\nhe could not have been punished for it, inasmuch as God cannot punish an\ninnocent person; and, if such an one be charged with this guilt, and\nconsequently rendered the object of vindictive justice, as our Saviour\nis said to have been, in scripture, it must be with his own consent. Now\nthe human nature could not consent to its own formation, and therefore\nit could not consent to bear our iniquities; since to consent supposes\nthe person to be existent, which Christ, had he been only Man, would not\nhave been before his incarnation, and therefore he could not have come\ninto the world as a Surety for us, and so would not have been fit, in\nthis respect, to have discharged the principal part of the work, which\nhe engaged in as Mediator.\n\n2. There is another thing, mentioned in this answer, which rendered it\nrequisite that the Mediator should be God, namely, that he might sustain\nand keep the human nature from sinking under the infinite wrath of God,\nand the power of death. It must be allowed, that the weight of the wrath\nof God, due to our sin, was so great, that no mere creature could, by\nhis own strength, have subsisted under it. We will not deny, that a mere\ncreature, supposing him only innocent, but not united to a divine\nPerson, might have been borne up, under the greatest burthen laid on\nhim, by the extraordinary assistance of God, with whom all things are\npossible; nor that God\u2019s giving a promise that he should not fail, or be\ndiscouraged, is such a security, as would effectually keep it from\nsinking; yet when we consider the human nature, as united to the divine,\nthis is an additional security, that he should not sink under the\ninfinite weight of the wrath of God, that lay upon him; for then it\nwould have been said, that he, who is a divine Person, miscarried in an\nimportant work, which he undertook to perform in his human nature, which\nwould have been a dishonour to him: so far this argument hath its proper\nforce. But,\n\n3. There is another reason, which more fully proves the necessity of the\nMediator\u2019s being a Divine Person, _viz._ that this might give worth and\nefficacy to his sufferings, obedience, and intercession, that so what he\ndid might have a tendency to answer the valuable ends designed thereby,\nnamely, the satisfying the justice of God, procuring his favour, and\npurchasing a peculiar people to himself. Had he been only man, what he\ndid and suffered, might indeed have been sinless, and perfect in its\nkind; nevertheless, it could not be of infinite value, for a finite\ncreature, as such, cannot pay an infinite price, and thereby answer the\ndemands of justice. Had nothing been demanded of him but a debt of\nobedience, which he was obliged to perform for himself, as a creature,\nit would not, indeed, have been necessary that it should be of infinite\nworth and value, any more than that obedience, that was due from our\nfirst parents, while in a state of innocency: But when this is\nconsidered as a price of redemption paid for us, and as designed to\nprocure a right to the favour of God, and eternal life, this must be of\nsuch a value, that the glory of the justice of God might be secured,\nwhich nothing less than an infinite price could do; and the law of God\nmust not only be fulfilled, but magnified, and made honourable; and\ntherefore the obedience, which was required, must not only be sinless,\nbut have in it an infinite worth and value, that hereby, when in a way\nof intercession, it is pleaded before God, it might be effectual to\nanswer the ends designed thereby; but this it could not have been, had\nhe not been an infinite Person, namely, God as well as Man.\n\n4. Another reason assigned for this, is, that he might give his Spirit\nto his people. It is necessary that redemption should be applied, as\nwell as purchased; and that the same Person, as a peculiar branch of\nglory due to him, should perform the one as well as the other; and, in\nthe application of redemption, it was necessary that the Spirit should\nbe glorified, that hereby he might appear to be a divine Person; and, as\nhe acts herein in subserviency to the Mediator\u2019s glory, as has been\nbefore observed[133], he is said to be sent by him, which he could not\nhave been, had not Christ had a divine nature, in which respect he was\nequal with him; nor could he be said to give that which the Spirit\nworks, as he promised to do, when he told his disciples, _If I depart, I\nwill send him unto you_, John xvi. 7.\n\n5. It was necessary that Christ should be God, that he might conquer all\nour enemies, and so remove every thing out of the way that tends to\noppose his name, interest, and glory; these are sin, Satan, the world,\nand death. Sin, which is opposite to the holiness of God, is that which\nspirits, excites, and gives being to all opposition there is against\nhim, either in earth or hell, and endeavours to eclipse his glory,\ncontroul his sovereignty, and reflect dishonour on all his perfections.\nThis must be subdued by Christ, so _that it may no longer have dominion_\nover his people, Rom. vi. 14. and, in order hereunto, its condemning\npower must be taken away, by his making satisfaction for it, as our\ngreat High Priest; and also its enslaving power subdued by the efficacy\nof his grace, in the internal work of sanctification.\n\nAnd, upon his having obtained this victory over sin, Satan is also\nconquered when his prisoners are brought from under his power; and he\nfinds himself for ever disappointed, and not able to detain those, who\nwere, at first, led captive by him, nor to defeat the purpose of God\nrelating to the salvation of his elect, or to boast as though he had\nwrested the sceptre out of his hand, or robbed him of one branch of his\nglory.\n\nMoreover, the world, which is reckoned among the number of God\u2019s\nenemies, must be conquered inasmuch as it opposes his name and interest\nin an objective way, from whence corrupt nature takes occasion either to\nabuse the various gifts and dispensations of providence, or by\ncontracting an intimacy with those who are enemies to God and religion,\nto become more like them, as the apostle says, _The friendship of the\nworld is enmity with God_, James iv. 4. Now Christ must be God, that he\nmay discover its snares, and enable his people to improve the good\nthings of providence to his glory, and over-rule the evil things thereof\nfor their good.\n\nAnd as for death, which is reckoned among Christ\u2019s and his people\u2019s\nenemies, which the apostle calls, _The last enemy that is to be\ndestroyed_, 1 Cor. xv. 26. this is suffered to detain the bodies of\nbelievers, as its prisoners, till Christ\u2019s second coming; but it must be\ndestroyed, that so they may be made partakers of complete redemption;\nand this is also a part of the Mediator\u2019s work, as he raises up his\npeople at the last day. And all these victories over sin, Satan, the\nworld, and death, as they require infinite power, so it is necessary\nthat he, who obtains them, should be a divine Person.\n\n6. It is necessary that the Mediator should be God, that he might bring\nhis people to everlasting salvation, that is, first fit them for, lead\nthem in the way to Heaven, and then receive them to it at last; for this\nreason, he is styled, _The author and Finisher of our Faith_, Heb. xii.\n2. and it is said, that as _he began the good work, so he performs it_,\nPhil. i. 6. or carries it on to perfection. Grace is Christ\u2019s gift and\nwork; as he purchased it by his blood, while on earth; it is necessary\nthat he should apply it by his power; even as Zerubbabel, who was a type\nof him, after he had laid the foundation-stone of the temple, at last,\n_brought forth the head-stone thereof, with shoutings, crying, Grace,\ngrace, unto it_, Zech. iv. 7. so Christ works all our works for us, and\nin us, till he brings them to perfection, and _presents his people unto\nhimself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such\nthing, but that it should be holy, and without blemish_, Eph. v. 27. and\nthis is certainly a divine work, and consequently he, who performs it,\nmust be a divine Person. And to this we may add,\n\n7. It was necessary that our Mediator should be God, inasmuch as the\neverlasting happiness of his people consists in the enjoyment of him. He\nis not only the Author of their complete blessedness, but, as we may\nexpress it, the matter of it; they are made happy, not only by him, but\nin him; accordingly heaven is described as a state, in which they\n_behold his glory_, John xvii. 24. and _see him as he is_, 1 John iii.\n2. therefore, since he is the Fountain of blessedness, it is requisite\nthat he should be God, as well as Man.\n\nII. It was requisite that the Mediator should be Man. When we speak of\nthe necessity of Christ\u2019s incarnation, we are not to understand hereby,\nthat this was absolutely necessary, without supposing the divine will,\nor purpose, to redeem man; for since our redemption was not in itself\nnecessary, but was only so, as the result of God\u2019s purpose relating\nthereunto; so Christ\u2019s incarnation was necessary, as a means to\naccomplish it. This is what divines generally call a conditional\nnecessity[134]; so that since Christ was ordained to be a Mediator\nbetween God and man, it was requisite that he should become Man: The\nreason assigned for it is, that he might perform obedience to the law.\nThat obedience to the law was required, in order to his making\nsatisfaction for sin, we shall have occasion to consider, when we speak\nof his Priestly office; therefore all that need be observed under this\nhead, is, that this obedience could not be performed by him in the\ndivine nature, in which respect he cannot be under any obligation to\nperform that which belongs only to those who are creatures, and as such\nsubjects; therefore, if he be made under the law, he must have a nature\nfitted and disposed to yield obedience.\n\nSome have enquired, whether it was possible for Christ to have answered\nthis end, by taking any other nature into union with his divine Person;\nor, whether this might have been brought about by his taking on him the\nnature of angels? I shall not enter so far into this subject, as to\ndetermine whether God might, had he pleased, have accepted of obedience\nin any other nature, fitted for that purpose; but we have ground, from\nscripture, to conclude, that this was the only way that God had ordained\nfor the redemption of man; and therefore, though Christ might have\nperformed obedience in some other finite nature, or might have taken the\nnature of angels, this would not, in all respects, have answered those\nmany great ends, which were designed by his incarnation. And therefore,\nsince this was the way in which God ordained that man should be\nredeemed, it was necessary that he should take the human nature into\nunion with his divine; and inasmuch as he was to yield obedience to the\nsame law, that we had violated, it was necessary that he should be _made\nof a woman_, as the apostle expresses it, Gal. iv. 4. God had ordained,\nas an expedient most conducive for his own glory, that he, who was to be\nour Redeemer, should run the same race with us; and also, that he should\nsuffer what was due to us, as the consequence of our rebellion against\nhim, that so, as _the Captain of our salvation, he should be made\nperfect through sufferings_, Heb. ii. 10. And inasmuch as sufferings\nwere due to us in our bodies, it was necessary, God having so ordained\nit, that he should suffer in his body, as well as in his soul; and as\ndeath entered into the world by sin, so God ordained it, that we should\nbe redeemed from the power of the grave, by one, who died for us; in\nwhich respects, it was necessary that he should be man.\n\nThere are also other ends mentioned in this answer, which render this\nnecessary, namely, that he might advance our nature. It was a very great\nhonour which that particular nature, which he assumed, was advanced\nunto, in its being taken into union with his divine Person. Though it\nhad no intrinsic dignity, or glory, above what other intelligent,\nfinite, sinless beings are capable of; yet it had a greater relative\nglory than any other creature had, or can have, which may be illustrated\nby a similitude taken from the body of man, how mean soever it is in\nitself, yet, when considered in its relation to the soul, that adds a\ndegree of excellency to it, in a relative sense, greater than what\nbelongs to any creature, destitute of understanding; so the human nature\nof Christ, though it had not in itself a glory greater than what another\nfinite creature might have been advanced to; yet, when considered as\nunited to the divine nature, its glory, in a relative sense may be said\nto be infinite.\n\nIt follows from hence, that since Christ\u2019s being truly and properly man,\nwas a particular instance, in him, of the advancement of our nature, to\na greater degree of honour, than what has been conferred on any other\ncreature, this lays the highest obligation on us to admire and adore\nhim; and should be an inducement to us, not to debase that nature which\nGod has, in this respect, delighted to honour, by the commission of\nthose sins, which are the greatest reproach unto it.\n\nAnother consequence of Christ\u2019s incarnation, whereby it farther appears\nthat it was requisite that he should be man, is that, in our nature, he\nmight make intercession for us. For the understanding of which, let it\nbe considered, that the divine nature cannot properly speaking, be said\nto make intercession, since this includes in it an act of worship, and\nargues the Person, who intercedes, to be dependent, and indigent, which\nis inconsistent with the self-sufficiency and independency of the\nGodhead; therefore, had he been only God, he could not have made\nintercession for us, and consequently this is the necessary result of\nhis incarnation.\n\n_Object. 1._ It may be objected hereunto, that _the Spirit_ is said to\n_make intercession for the Saints, according to the will of God_, Rom.\nviii. 27. whereas he has no human nature to make intercession in;\ntherefore Christ might have made intercession for us, though he had not\nbeen incarnate.\n\n_Answ._ When the Spirit is said to make intercession for us, this is not\nto be understood of his appearing in the presence of God, and so\noffering prayers, or supplications to him in our behalf; but it only\nintends his enabling us to pray for ourselves, which is an effect of his\npower, working this grace in us; therefore the apostle, speaking\nconcerning the same thing, says, elsewhere, _God hath sent the Spirit of\nhis Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father_, Gal. iv. 6. that is,\nenabling us to cry, _Abba, Father_: Such an intercession as this, is not\nunbecoming a divine Person; and this is what is plainly the sense of\nthose scriptures, in which the Spirit is said to intercede for us. As\nfor Christ\u2019s intercession, it consists, indeed, in his praying for\nus,[135] rather than enabling us to pray; therefore it was requisite\nthat he should be Man, in order thereunto.\n\n_Object. 2._ It is generally supposed, that Christ made intercession for\nhis people before his incarnation: Thus we cannot but conclude, that he\nis intended by _the angel of the Lord_, who is represented as pleading\nfor Israel; _O Lord of hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on\nJerusalem, and upon the cities of Judah, against which thou hast had\nindignation these three-score and ten years?_ Zech. i. 12. and also as\npleading in their behalf against the accusations of Satan, _The Lord\nrebuke thee, O Satan; even the Lord, which hath chosen Jerusalem, rebuke\nthee: Is not this a brand which is plucked out of the fire?_ chap. iii.\n2. If therefore he made intercession at that time, when he had no human\nnature, his incarnation was not necessary thereunto.\n\n_Answ._ Though we allow that Christ is often represented, in the Old\nTestament, as interceding for his people; yet these expressions are\neither proleptical, and do not denote, so much, what Christ then did, as\nwhat he would do, after he had assumed our nature; or they imply, that\nthe salvation of the church, under that dispensation, was owing to the\nintercession that Christ would make after his incarnation, as well as to\nthat satisfaction which he would give to the justice of God in our\nnature; so that Christ, in those scriptures, is represented as procuring\nthose blessings for his people, by what he would, in reality, do after\nhis incarnation, the virtue whereof is supposed to be extended to them\nat that time: He did not therefore _formally_, but _virtually_,\nintercede for them; and consequently it does not prove that his\nincarnation was not necessary for his making that intercession, which he\never lives to do in the behalf of his church.\n\nIt is farther observed, that it was requisite that our Mediator should\nbe Man, that he might have a fellow-feeling of our infirmities: Thus the\napostle says, _He was touched with the feeling of our infirmities_,\nhaving been, _in all points_; in his human nature, _tempted like as we\nare, yet without sin_, Heb. iv. 15. As God, it is true, he has a\nperfect, namely, a divine knowledge of our infirmities, but not an\nexperimental knowledge thereof; and therefore, in this respect, had he\nnot been Man, he could not have been said to sympathize with us herein;\nand therefore his compassion towards us, has this additional motive,\ntaken from his incarnation: It was in this respect that he had the\npassions of the human nature, and thereby is induced, from what he once\nexperienced, to help our infirmities, as being such as he himself\ncondescended to bear.\n\nAnd to this it may be added, as a farther consequence of his\nincarnation, that we are made partakers of the adoption of sons, and\nhave comfort and access with boldness, to the throne of grace. This the\napostle also gives us occasion to infer, from his being made of a woman,\nand made under the law, not only that _he might redeem them that were\nunder the law_, but _that we might receive the adoption of sons_, Gal.\niv. 5. and encourages us, from hence, to _come boldly to the throne of\ngrace_, Heb. iv. 16. As Christ\u2019s Sonship, as Mediator, includes his\nincarnation, and was the ground and reason of the throne of grace being\nerected, to which we are invited to come; so, he being, in the same\nrespect, constituted Heir of all things, believers who are the sons of\nGod, in a lower sense, are notwithstanding, styled, _Heirs of God, and\njoint heirs with Christ_, Rom. viii. 17. He is the Head and Lord of this\ngreat family, who purchased an inheritance for them, and they the\nmembers thereof, who, in the virtue of his purchase, have a right to it;\ntherefore his incarnation, which was necessary hereunto, was the great\nfoundation of our obtaining the privilege of God\u2019s adopted children, and\nof our access by him to the Father. We first come by faith to him, who,\nif we allude to Elihu\u2019s words, _was formed out of the clay_, and\ntherefore _his terror shall not make us afraid, neither shall his hand\nbe heavy upon us_, Job xxxiii. 6. and through him, we come to God, as\nour reconciled Father.\n\nIII. It was requisite that the Mediator should be God and man, in one\nPerson. Had his human nature been a distinct human Person, the work of\nour redemption would have been brought about by two persons, which would\neach of them have had the character of Mediator, unless two persons\ncould be so united, as to constitute but one, which is no better than a\ncontradiction. And it is farther observed, in the answer under our\npresent consideration, that there were works to be performed, proper to\neach nature: in the human nature he was to perform every thing that\nimplied subjection, obedience, or suffering; and though none of these\ncould be performed by him, in his divine nature, yet an infinite worth,\nvalue, and dignity, was to be added thereunto, which was not so much the\nresult of any thing done by him in that nature, as of the union of the\nhuman nature with it; upon which account, the obedience he performed,\nhad, in a relative sense, the same value, as though it had been\nperformed in his divine nature; and, upon this account, it is said, that\n_God purchased the church with his own blood_, Acts xx. 28.\n\nAnd to this we may add, that as each nature was distinct, and their\nproperties not in the least confounded, as was before observed; so we\noften read, in scripture, of distinct properties attributed to the same\nperson, which are opposed to each other, namely, mortality and\nimmortality, weakness and omnipotency, dependence and independence, &c.\nwhich could not be, with any propriety of speaking, applied to him, had\nhe not been God and man, in the same person. This is generally styled by\ndivines, _a communication of properties_,[136] concerning which we must\nobserve, that the properties of one nature are not predicated of the\nother; as the Lutherans suppose, when they conclude, that the human\nnature of Christ is omnipresent, upon which their doctrine of\n_consubstantiation_ is founded; but we assert, that the properties of\none nature are predicated of the same person, to whom the other nature\nalso belongs; so that when we say the Person, that was God, obeyed and\nsuffered; or the Person, that was man, paid an infinite price to the\njustice of God, we are far from asserting, that the Godhead of Christ\nobeyed, or the manhood merited;[137] and this is the necessary result of\nhis two natures being united in one Person. There are two things\nobserved, in illustrating this matter.\n\n1. That the works of each nature must be accepted of God for us, as the\nworks of the whole Person, or of the same Person; therefore, if the\nnature that obeyed and suffered had been an human person, his obedience\nand sufferings could not have been of infinite value, or accepted by God\nas a sufficient price of redemption; for they could not have had this\nvalue reflected on them, had they not been the works of a divine Person:\nand those rays of divine glory, that shined forth in his human nature,\ncould have no immediate relation to it, had it been a distinct Person\nfrom that of his Godhead.\n\n2. It is farther observed, that those works, which were performed by him\nin each nature, are to be relied on by us, as the works of the whole\nPerson: this reliance contains in it an instance of adoration, and\nsupposes the Person, who performs them, to be God, which he was not in\nhis human nature; therefore we are to adore our Mediator, and rely on\nthe works performed by him, in his human nature, as he is God and man in\none Person. As we have sufficient ground, from scripture to conclude,\nthat the Mediator is the Object of divine adoration; so we are to depend\non him, as a divine Person, for salvation; and our worship herein does\nnot terminate on his human nature, but on his deity: but, if his human\nnature had been a distinct human person we could not be said to adore\nhim that died for us, and rose again; so that, upon all these accounts,\nit is necessary that he should be not only God and man, but that these\ntwo natures should be united in one Person.\n\nHaving considered our Mediator as God and man, in one Person, we are now\nto speak of him as having those glorious titles and characters\nattributed to him, expressive of his mediatorial work and dignity;\naccordingly, he is variously denominated as such in scripture: sometimes\nhe is called, _Lord_, Phil, iv. 5. at other times, _Jesus_, Matt. i. 21.\nand elsewhere, _The Lord Jesus_, Acts ix. 17. and also, _The Lord\nChrist_, Col. iii. 24. and, in other places, _The Lord Jesus Christ_,\nchap. i. 2. He is called _Lord_, to denote the infinite dignity of his\nPerson, as God equal with the Father; which name is given him in the New\nTestament, in the same sense, in which he is called _Jehovah_ in the\nOld, as has been observed under a foregoing answer,[138] and to denote\nhis divine sovereignty, as the Governor of the world, and the church,\nand particularly as executing his kingly office as Mediator; and, in the\ntwo following answers, he is described by his mediatorial characters,\n_Jesus_, and _Christ_.\n\nFootnote 133:\n\n _See_ Vol. I. _Page 291, 292._\n\nFootnote 134:\n\n _It is otherwise styled_, Necessitas consequenti\u00e6.\n\nFootnote 135:\n\n And in presenting his glorious body with the marks of suffering.\n\nFootnote 136:\n\n _See Vol. I. page 261._\n\nFootnote 137:\n\n _This is generally styled, by divines_, Communicatio idiomatum in\n concreto, non in abstracto.\n\nFootnote 138:\n\n _See Vol. I. page 296, 306._\n\n\n\n\n Quest. XLI., XLII.\n\n\n QUEST. XLI. _Why was our Mediator called Jesus?_\n\n ANSW. Our Mediator was called Jesus, because he saveth his people\n from their sins.\n\n QUEST. XLII. _Why was our Mediator called Christ?_\n\n ANSW. Our Mediator was called Christ, because he was anointed with\n the Holy Ghost above measure, and so set apart, and fully furnished\n with all authority and ability, to execute the offices of Prophet,\n Priest, and King of his church, in the estate both of his\n humiliation and exaltation.\n\nI. Our Mediator is very often called _Jesus_ in the New Testament, which\nname signifies _a Saviour_, as it is particularly intimated by the\nangel, who gave direction, that he should be so called, before his\nbirth, Matt. i. 21. and he is not only styled our Saviour, but _our\nSalvation_, in the abstract: thus the prophet, foretelling his\nincarnation, says, _Behold, thy Salvation cometh; his reward is with\nhim, and his work before him_, Isa. lxii. 11. and, when Simeon _held him\nin his arms, he blessed God, and said, Lord, now lettest thou thy\nservant depart in peace, according to thy word, for mine eyes have seen\nthy salvation_, Luke ii. 28-30. He is a Saviour, as he brings about\nsalvation for us, and we attain it by him; and he may be styled our\nSalvation, as our eternal blessedness consists in the enjoyment of him.\nSalvation contains in it a preserving and delivering us from all evil,\nwhich some call the negative idea thereof, and a conferring on us the\ngreatest good, which is the positive idea of it. In saving us from evil,\nhe is sometimes said to _deliver us from this present evil world_, Gal.\ni. 4. and elsewhere we are said _to be saved from wrath through him_,\nRom. v. 9. and, as all the deliverance we experience, or hope for, is\nincluded in the word _Salvation_, so are all the spiritual blessings\nwherewith we are blessed, in this, or a better world; and, upon this\naccount, he, who is the purchaser and author thereof, is called Jesus.\n\n1. Since Christ is called Jesus, let us be exhorted to take heed that we\ndo not entertain any unworthy thoughts of him, or that salvation which\nhe hath procured, by supposing it indefinite, or indeterminate, or that\nhe did not come into the world to save a certain number, who shall\neventually obtain this blessing; but that he is the Redeemer, and\nconsequently the Saviour of many that shall finally perish, which is\nlittle better than a contradiction. And let us not suppose, that it is\nin the power of man to make his salvation of none effect; for whatever\ndifficulties there may be in the way, he will certainly overcome them,\notherwise he would be called Jesus, or a Saviour to no purpose; and\ntherefore they, who suppose him to be the Saviour of all mankind upon\nthis uncertain condition, that they improve their natural powers, or the\nliberty of their will, so as to render his purpose, relating to their\nsalvation, effectual, which otherwise it would not be, do not give him\nthe glory which belongs to him, as called Jesus.\n\n2. Let us take heed that we do not extenuate his salvation to our own\ndiscouragement, as though he were not able to save, to the uttermost all\nthat come unto God by him, or did not come into the world to save the\nchief of sinners; or we had certain ground to conclude our case to be so\ndeplorable, as that we are out of the reach of his salvation.\n\n3. Let none presume, without ground, that he is their Saviour, or that\nthey have an interest in him as such, while in an unconverted state; or\nvainly conclude, that they shall be saved by him, without faith in, or\nsubjection to him.\n\n4. Let this name Jesus tend to excite in us the greatest thankfulness,\nespecially if we have experienced the beginning of the work of\nsalvation; and let such encourage themselves to hope, that having begun\nthe good work in them, he will finish it, when he shall appear, a second\ntime, without sin, unto salvation.\n\nII. Our Mediator is called Christ, or, as it is generally expressed in\nthe Old Testament, the Messiah, which signifies a person anointed: thus\nit is said, _We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the\nChrist_, John i. 41. or, as it is in the margin, the _anointed_. And, as\nanointing was made use of under the ceremonial law, in the public\ninauguration and investiture of prophets, priests, and kings, in their\nrespective offices, they are, for that reason, called _God\u2019s anointed:_\nthus it is said, concerning the prophets, _Touch not mine anointed and\ndo my prophets no harm_, Psal. cv. 15. Kings are likewise so styled, as\nSamuel says, _Surely the Lord\u2019s anointed is before him_, 1 Sam. xvi. 6.\nThese were often anointed, though not always;[139] but the priests were\nalways anointed, when they first entered on their office; and the high\npriest is described by this character, as he upon _whose head the\nanointing oil was poured;_ so we read of _the precious ointment upon the\nhead that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron\u2019s beard, that went down to\nthe skirts of his garments_, Psal. cxxxiii. 2. This was not an\ninsignificant ceremony, or merely political, in which respect it is\nused, in our day, in the inauguration of kings; but it was an ordinance\nto signify God\u2019s designation of them, to the office which they were to\nexecute, in which they were to expect, and depend upon him for those\nqualifications that were necessary thereunto; but it was more especially\ndesigned to typify the solemn inauguration and investiture of our\nSaviour, in the offices of Prophet, Priest, and King of his church; and,\nin allusion hereunto, he is called, _the Messiah_, or _the Christ_. His\nanointing was not external, or visible, with material oil; but, in a\nspiritual sense, it signified his receiving a commission from the Father\nto execute the offices of Prophet, Priest, and King: upon which account,\nhe is styled, God\u2019s _holy child Jesus, whom he had anointed_, Acts iv.\n27. And this unction, as it was of a spiritual nature, so it was\nattended with greater circumstances of glory; and the offices he was\nappointed to execute, were more spiritual, extensive, and advantageous,\nthan theirs, who were types thereof: thus the Psalmist says of him,\n_God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness, above thy\nfellows_, Psal. xlv. 7. accordingly he was anointed to execute his\nprophetical office, _to preach the gospel to the poor_, Luke iv. 18. and\nhis priestly, so the prophet Daniel speaks of him, as _finishing\ntransgression, making an end of sin, bringing in an everlasting\nrighteousness_, Dan. ix. 24. which he did as a Priest; and then he\nspeaks of anointing him, who was most holy, as infinitely excelling all\nthose who were anointed with holy oil. He is also said to be anointed to\nexecute his kingly office; and, with respect thereunto, is called the\nLord\u2019s anointed; and God says, concerning him, _I have set_, or as it is\nin the margin, _anointed, my king upon my holy hill of Sion_, Psal. ii.\n2. Now there are three things which are more especially intended in this\nunction, which are particularly mentioned in this answer.\n\n1. His being set apart, or separated from the rest of mankind, as the\nonly Person who was designed to execute the offices, together with his\npublic investiture therein. For the right understanding of which, let it\nbe considered, that there was an eternal designation of him by the\nFather thereunto: thus the apostle speaks of him, as one _who was\nfore-ordained before the foundation of the world_, 1 Pet. i. 20. And\nsome think, that this is intended by that expression of the Psalmist, _I\nwill declare the decree; the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son,\nthis day have I begotten thee_, Psal. ii. 7. and that this is also\nintended by _his being set up from everlasting_, Prov. viii. 23. This we\nmay call his eternal inauguration, which was the foundation, ground, and\nreason of his incarnation, or of that inauguration, or investiture,\nwhich was visible to men in time, which is the second thing to be\nconsidered, in his being set apart to execute these offices.\n\nWhen he came into the world, there was a glorious declaration given,\nboth to angels and men, that he was the Person whom God had conferred\nthis honour upon, and accordingly he received glory from them, as\nMediator, by a divine warrant; so some understand that scripture, _When\nhe bringeth in the first-begotten into the world, he saith, and let all\nthe angels of God worship him_, Heb. i. 6. And elsewhere we read, Luke\nii. 10, 11. of the angels being sent as heralds, to make proclamation of\nthis matter to men, at his first coming into the world. And, when he\nentered on his public ministry, there was a divine declaration given, as\na farther visible confirmation hereof, immediately after his baptism,\nwhen _the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God\ndescending like a dove, and lighting upon him, and lo, a voice from\nheaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased_,\nMatt. iii. 16, 17. and John the Baptist was immediately raised up, as a\nprophet, to signify this to the world, which he did at that time, when\nour Saviour first entered on his public ministry, and speaks of him, as\n_preferred before himself_, not only as having a more excellent nature,\nbut as being set apart to an higher office, than that which he was\ncalled to; and accordingly he styles him, _The Lamb of God_, intimating,\nthat God had set him apart, as the great Sacrifice that was to be\noffered for sin, John i. 29, 30. and, soon after this, he gives another\ntestimony hereunto, together with a glorious, yet just, character of the\nPerson, who was invested with this authority, when he says, concerning\nhim, _A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven_: q.\nd. \u201cI have not received this honour of being the Christ, and doing the\nworks which he does, but it is given him from heaven: I am not the\n_bridegroom_ of the church, but _his friend_, who _rejoice greatly,\nbecause of his voice; what he hath seen and heard, that he testified_;\nand God hath sent him, _whose word he speaketh; for God giveth not the\nSpirit by measure unto him; the Father loveth the Son, and hath given\nall things into his hand_, John iii. 27-35. therefore he is set apart,\nby him, to perform the work of a Mediator, which belongeth not unto me.\u201d\n\n2. Christ was furnished with authority, or had a commission given him,\nto perform the work he was engaged in, as Mediator. This was absolutely\nnecessary, since, as the apostle says, concerning the priesthood in\ngeneral, that _no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is\ncalled of God_, and authorized by him to perform it, _as was Aaron; so\nalso Christ glorified not himself, but he that said unto him, Thou art\nmy Son, to-day have I begotten thee_; and, _Thou art a Priest for ever,\nafter the order of Melchisedec_, Heb. v. 4-6. As it was reckoned an\nintrusion, and no other than an instance of profaneness, for any one to\nexercise a sacred office, without a divine warrant, it was necessary\nthat our Saviour should be furnished therewith: the work he was to\nperform was glorious, the consequences thereof of the highest\nimportance, and his services would not have been accepted, or availed to\nanswer the great ends thereof, had he not received a commission from the\nFather. And that he came into the world with this commission and\nauthority, derived from him, he constantly asserts and proves, he\nasserts it, when speaking concerning himself, that _God the Father had\nsealed him_, John vi. 27. and elsewhere says, _I have power to lay down\nmy life, and to take it again; this commandment have I received of my\nFather_, John x. 18. and he not only asserts, but proves it; every\nmiracle that he wrought being a confirmation thereof, in which respect a\ndivine testimony was affixed to his commission: thus he says, _The works\nthat I do, in my Father\u2019s name, they bear witness of me_, ver. 25. and\nelsewhere, when he asserts his authority, and proves, that _the words\nwhich he spake, he spake not of himself_; he adds, _the Father that\ndwelleth in me, he doth the works_, John xiv. 10, 11. He appeals to\nthose miraculous works, which were performed either by himself, or by\nthe Father, which he might well do, because the Father and he had the\nsame divine power, and thereby intimates, that the commission, which he\nreceived from the Father, was attested in this extraordinary manner.\n\n3. Our Saviour\u2019s unction included in it an ability to execute those\noffices, which he was engaged in, as Mediator. We have before observed,\nthat when persons, under the ceremonial law, were anointed to execute\nthe offices either of prophet, priest, or king; this was not only an\nordinance, to signify that they had a divine warrant to execute them,\nbut they were hereby given to expect those qualifications that were\nnecessary to the discharge thereof. God never calls to an office, but he\nqualifies for it: thus our Saviour was furnished with ability, as well\nas authority; this was more especially applicable to his human nature,\nin which he was to obey and suffer; as to his divine nature, that could\nnot be the subject of a derived power, or qualifications conferred upon\nit. Now this ability, with which our Saviour was furnished, as man, was\nthat which rendered him fit to perform the work which he came into the\nworld about. As a Prophet, he was qualified to preach the gospel with\ngreater wisdom and authority than all others, who were ever engaged in\nthis work: his very enemies confessed, that _never man spake like him_,\nJohn vii. 46. and he had continual assistance from God, which preserved\nhim from all mistakes; so that what he delivered was infallibly true,\nand, as such to be depended on: he was also furnished with zeal for the\nglory of God, yet such as was tempered with sympathy, meekness, and\ncompassion towards his people; and an holy courage, resolution, and\nfortitude, which preserved him from fainting, or being discouraged under\nall his sufferings; and a constant disposition and inclination to refer\nall to the glory of the Father, and not to assume any branch of divine\nhonour to his human nature; and, by this means, the whole discharge of\nhis ministry was acceptable, both to God and man.\n\nThus concerning the reasons why our Saviour is called Christ. And this\nleads us to consider the offices which he was anointed to execute, upon\nthe account whereof he is styled, the Prophet, Priest, and King of his\nchurch. Here we shall premise some things in general concerning these\nthree offices; and then speak to each of them, as contained in the\nfollowing answers.\n\n1. Concerning the number of the offices, which he executes; they are\n_three_. Some have enquired, whether there are not more than three\nexecuted by him, inasmuch as there are several characters and relations,\nwhich Christ is described by, and is said to stand in, to his people,\nbesides those of Prophet, Priest, and King: thus he is styled, _The Head\nof the body, the church_, Col. i. 18. and _an Husband_, to it, Isa. liv.\n5. and _a Bridegroom_, John iii. 29. and elsewhere he is said to perform\nthe office of a _Shepherd_: thus he styles himself, _The good Shepherd_,\nJohn x. 14. and he is called, _The Captain of our salvation_, Heb. ii.\n10. and many other characters of the like nature are given him, from\nwhence some have taken occasion to think, that several of them contain\nideas, distinct from those of a Prophet, Priest, and King, and therefore\nthat there are more offices than these executed by him: but all that\nneed be said to this, is, that these, and other characters and\nrelations, which are ascribed to Christ in scripture, are all included\nin, or reducible to one or other of these three offices; therefore we\nhave no reason to conclude, that he executes any other offices, distinct\nfrom them, as Mediator.\n\n2. The condition of fallen man, and the way in which God designed to\nbring him to salvation, which was adapted thereunto, renders it\nnecessary that Christ should execute these three offices. Accordingly,\nwe are all of us, by nature, ignorant of, and prejudiced against divine\ntruth, as the apostle observes, _The natural man receiveth not the\nthings of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither\ncan he know them, because they are spiritually discerned_, 1 Cor. ii.\n14. therefore it is necessary that Christ should execute the office of a\nProphet, to lead us into all truth, and give this spiritual discerning\nthereof.\n\nMoreover, we are all _guilty before God_, Rom. iii. 19. and can by no\nmeans make atonement, give satisfaction to his justice, or procure a\npardon; nor can we plead any thing done by us, as a ground thereof;\ntherefore we need that Christ should execute the office of a Priest, and\nso first make atonement, and then intercession, for us.\n\nAnd as to the way in which God brings his people to salvation, this\nrequires Christ\u2019s executing his threefold office. Salvation must be\npurchased, proclaimed, and applied; the first of these respects Christ\u2019s\nPriestly office; the second, his Prophetical; and the third, his Kingly;\naccordingly he is said to be _made of God unto us wisdom, righteousness,\nsanctification, and redemption_, 1 Cor. i. 30. and elsewhere he styles\nhimself, _The Way, the Truth, and the Life_, John xiv. 6.\n\nMoreover, in the execution of these offices, and bringing us thereby to\nsalvation, he deals with God and man in different respects; with God,\nmore especially, as a Priest, in satisfying his justice, and procuring\nhis favour: thus the high priest under the law, who was a type of\nChrist\u2019s Priestly office, is said to be _ordained for men in things\npertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for\nsins_, Heb. v. 1. even so Christ, our great High Priest, by offering\nhimself a sacrifice, performed that part of his ministry which pertained\nto God, in the behalf of men; and he also deals with God, by appearing\nin his presence, continually making intercession for them; and, on the\nother hand, he deals with men, as designing to bring them to God, which\nhe does more especially as a Prophet and King.\n\n3. These three offices, which Christ executes, are distinct, and\ntherefore not to be confounded. This we maintain against Socinus, and\nhis followers: they speak, indeed, of Christ, as a Prophet, Priest, and\nKing, which they are obliged to do, because the words are so frequently\nmentioned in scripture; yet the sense they give of them, amounts to\nlittle more than an acknowledgment of his Prophetical office: and even\nthis, as they explain it, contains in it nothing more than what other\nprophets, that went before him, either were, or might have been,\nqualified to perform; for any one, who is under divine inspiration, may\ninfallibly declare the will of God, and give forth those laws, by which\nGod has ordained that his church should be governed; and our Saviour,\naccording to them, does little more than this. They speak of him,\nindeed, as a Priest, but not as making satisfaction for our sins to the\njustice of God, nor by interceding in the virtue thereof, but only by\nputting up prayers and supplications to him on our behalf; which differs\nvery little from those prayers and supplications that were put up by\nother prophets in behalf of the people.\n\nAgain, they speak of him as a King, but not as subduing our wills, or\nconquering our enemies, by almighty power; or, if they allow that he\nsubdues us to himself, as a King, yet, in their farther explaining\nthereof, they mean nothing else by it, but his gaining us over to his\nside by arguments, freeing us from our ignorance, and over-coming our\nprejudices against truth, by a clear revelation of it; or, if they speak\nof his conquering our enemies, they intend nothing else by it, but his\nguarding and defending his people, by furnishing them with arguments to\nresist their subtle attempts against them, all which things are\nreducible to his Prophetical office; so that, though they speak of him\nas executing three offices, it is no more than if they should assert,\nthat he executes but one; and the most they intend by all this, is, that\nhe is a teacher, sent from God, and consequently not much superior in\nexcellency to Moses, who was a prophet, raised up from among his\nbrethren, and had the honourable character given him, that he was\n_faithful in all his house_; whereas, the apostle proves, by what he\nsays of our Lord Jesus, that he was _counted worthy of more glory_, as\n_he who hath builded the house, hath more honour than the house_; and\nfarther styles him a divine Person, when he says, he that _built all\nthings is God_, Heb. iii. 2, 3.\n\n4. These three offices, which Christ executes, are not to be divided,\nespecially when they are executed in such a way, as is effectual to the\nsalvation of those who are concerned herein. He may, indeed, in an\nobjective way, reveal the will of God, or give laws to his church, as a\nProphet, without working savingly upon the understanding: he may also\nexecute his kingly office, as a judge, in pouring the vials of his wrath\non his enemies, without subduing the stubbornness of their wills, or\nbringing them to the obedience of faith: nevertheless, we must conclude,\nthat, wheresoever he executes one of these offices in a saving way, he\nexecutes them all. In this respect, though the offices be distinguished,\nyet in the execution of them, they are not divided: thus whosoever is so\ntaught by him, as a Prophet, as to be made wise to salvation, is\nredeemed by his blood, as a Priest, overcome by his power as a King, and\nbrought into subjection to his will in all things; so all for whom, as a\npriest, he has purchased peace, to them he will, in his own time,\nproclaim it, as a Prophet, and enable them to believe in him, by making\nthem willing in the day of his power.\n\n5. He executes these offices in a twofold state; first, of humiliation,\nand then of exaltation, with different circumstances agreeable\nthereunto; which twofold state will be considered in some following\nanswers. What we shall observe, at present, concerning it is, that that\npart of Christ\u2019s priestly office, in which he made atonement for sin,\nwas executed on earth in his state of humiliation: whereas the other\npart thereof, consisting in his intercession, together with some\nbranches of his prophetical and kingly office, were executed both in\nearth and heaven, though in a different manner, agreeable to those\ncircumstances of glory in which he was, and is.\n\nFootnote 139:\n\n _Prophets were, indeed, oftentimes set apart for that office, without\n anointing; but it seems probable, from the command of God to Elijah,\n to anoint Elisha to be a prophet in his room, that when they were\n called, in an extraordinary manner, to be public prophets, and in that\n respect, as it is said concerning the prophet Jeremiah,_ [chap. i.\n 10.] Set over nations and kingdoms, _then they were not only\n sanctified and ordained hereunto, but the ceremony of anointing was\n used, especially when some other prophet was appointed to instal them\n in this office. And as for kings, though they were not always\n anointed, yet this ceremony was generally used, as is observed by some\n Jewish writers, when the kingdom was rent out of the hand of one, and\n another was, by immediate divine direction, substituted to reign in\n his stead: thus, when the kingdom was taken from Saul, David was\n anointed; and it was also used in other instances, though the crown\n was inherited by lineal descent, when any other made pretensions to\n it. Thus David commanded Solomon to be anointed, because Adonijah\n pretended to it,_ [1 Kings i. 34.] _And Joash was anointed, though he\n had a right to the crown, as descended from Ahaziah, who was king\n before him, because the crown had, for some time, been usurped by\n Athaliah,_ [2 Kings xi. 12.] _In these, and such like cases, kings\n were installed in their office by unction, though, in other instances,\n it was not universally practised._\n\n\n\n\n Quest. XLIII.\n\n\n QUEST. XLIII. _How doth Christ execute the office of a Prophet?_\n\n ANSW. Christ executeth the office of a Prophet, in his revealing to\n the church, in all ages, by his Spirit and word, in divers ways of\n administration, the whole will of God, in all things concerning\n their edification and salvation.\n\nThat which may be first observed, before we consider the parts of\nChrist\u2019s prophetical office, and the manner of his executing it, is the\norder in which it is mentioned, as set before his priestly and kingly\noffices, which may give us occasion to enquire whether it be executed\nbefore them.\n\n1. If we consider the natural order of his executing his three offices,\nor the dependence of the execution of them, one on the other, then it\nmust be observed, that he first executes his priestly office, and,\npursuant hereunto, his prophetical and kingly; for sinners must first be\nredeemed by his blood, before they can be brought to a saving knowledge\nof him, or an entire subjection to him; therefore he first deals with\nGod as a Priest, in our behalf, and thereby prepares the way of\nsalvation, and lays the foundation thereof, in his oblation and\nintercession, and then, as a Prophet and King, he deals with men, and\nthereby brings them to God. In this respect, therefore, if these three\noffices were to be laid down in their natural order, we must say, that\nChrist executes the office of a Priest, Prophet, and King.\n\n2. If we consider the order in which our Saviour executed these offices,\nin the exercise of his public ministry, we may say, he first produced\nhis commission, or proclaimed the end of his coming into the world, and\nproved himself to be the Messiah, and so discovered himself to his\npeople, as the great Prophet of his church; and, after that, he laid\ndown his life, as a sacrifice for sin, as a Priest, and then he\nconquered his enemies, spoiled principalities and powers, and exerted\nthe exceeding greatness of his power, in the application of redemption,\nas a King. It is in this respect that the offices of Christ are\ngenerally treated of, in the same method in which they are here laid\ndown; so that his prophetical office is first mentioned, which is what\nwe are now to consider. And,\n\nI. We shall shew how Christ is described, in scripture, as the Prophet\nof his church. There are many expressions whereby his prophetical office\nis set forth: Thus he is styled, _a Teacher come from God_, John iii. 2.\nand he calls himself our _Master_, Matt. xxiii. 8. or the Lord of our\nfaith, and, as such, is distinguished from all other teachers, some of\nwhich affected very much to be called Rabbi, and would persuade the\nworld, by an implicit faith, to believe whatever they said: But our\nSaviour advises his disciples to refuse that title; for, says he, _One\nis your master, even Christ_.\n\nAgain, he is called, _a law-giver_, Mat. xxxiii. 22. or, the one and\nonly lawgiver; and, it is added, that he differs from all other\nlaw-givers, in that he is _able to save, and to destroy_, James iv. 12.\nhe is also called, _The Angel_, or _Messenger of the covenant_, who\nreveals the covenant of grace to us; and brings these glad tidings, that\nis, in him, reconciling the world to himself.\n\nHe is also called, _The apostle_, as well as the high Priest, _of our\nprofession_, Heb. iii. 1. as he was first sent of God to publish peace,\nbefore he appointed others, who are called apostles, or inferior\nministers to him, to pursue the same design. He is also styled, _A\nwitness to the people_, their _leader_ and _commander_, Isa. lv. 4. and\nhe is farther described, as a _faithful witness_, Rev. i. 5.\n\nAnd he is set forth by several metaphorical expressions, which denote\nthe execution of this office, _viz._ _The light which shineth in\ndarkness_, John i. 5. Thus the prophet Isaiah describes him, when he\nsays, _Arise, shine, for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is\nrisen upon thee_, Isa. lx. 1. He is likewise compared to the sun, the\nfountain of light, and so called, _The Sun of righteousness_, that was\n_to arise with healing in his wings_, Mal. iv. 2. and, _The bright and\nmorning star_, Rev. xxii. 16. by which, and many other expressions to\nthe same purpose, this prophetical office of Christ is set forth in\nscripture.\n\nII. We shall now consider what Christ does in the execution of his\nprophetical office, as he is said to reveal the will of God to his\nchurch. And,\n\n1. How he was qualified for this work, which supposes him to have a\nperfect knowledge of the divine will. We have before observed, that the\nSocinians, agreeably to the low thoughts they have of him, as a mere\ncreature, suppose, that he was unacquainted with the will of God till he\nentered on his public ministry; and, in order to his being instructed\ntherein, that he was, soon after his baptism, taken into heaven, and\nthere learned, from the Father, what he was to impart to mankind, which\nthey suppose to be the meaning of those scriptures, that speak of him,\nas _coming down from heaven_, or _coming forth from the Father_, into\nthe world, John vi. 38. compared with chap. xvi. 28. and his _speaking\nas the Father had taught him_, or _what he had seen with his Father_,\nchap. viii. 28, 38. But, since we have shewn the absurdity of this\nopinion elsewhere, when speaking in defence of our Saviour\u2019s deity[140],\nand have considered that those scriptures, which mention his coming down\nfrom heaven, plainly refer to his incarnation, and that the mode of\nexpression is the same, as when God is said, in other scriptures, to\ncome down into this lower world, by his manifestative presence here,\nwhich is not inconsistent with his omnipresence; therefore I shall only\nadd, at present, that those scriptures, which speak of Christ\u2019s being\ntaught the things which he was to impart to the church, as they do not\noverthrow the omniscience of his divine nature; so they give no\ncountenance to this supposition, that his human nature was taken up into\nheaven to be taught the will of God. In this nature, indeed, he needed\ninstruction, and had no knowledge but what he received by communication;\nand it is plainly said of him, that he _increased in wisdom_, as he\nadvanced in age: But the knowledge which he had, as man, which was\nsufficient to furnish him for the execution of this office, proceeded\nfrom a two-fold cause, namely, the union of that nature with his divine\nPerson, the result whereof was, his having all those perfections that\nbelong to it, of which the knowledge of divine things is one; for it\nwould have been a dishonour to him, as God, to be united to a nature\nthat had the least blemish or defect, or was unqualified to perform the\nwork which he was therein to engage in. And, besides this, our Saviour\nhad an unction from the Holy Ghost, which, as has been already observed,\nimplies not only his receiving a commission, but, together therewith,\nall necessary qualifications to discharge the work he was engaged in,\nwhich include in them his knowing the whole will of God; as it is said,\n_God gave not the Spirit by measure unto him_, John iii. 34. that is, he\ngave it in a greater measure to him, than he ever did to any other, as\nthe work, that he was to engage in, required it.\n\n2. Let us now consider what is the will of God, which Christ reveals.\nThis includes in it every thing that relates to our salvation, or that\nis necessary to be known and believed by us, in order thereunto, viz.\nthat God had an eternal design to glorify his grace, in the recovery of\na part of mankind from that guilt and misery, in which they were\ninvolved, and putting them into the possession of compleat blessedness;\nand that, in order hereunto, each of the Persons in the Godhead designed\nto demonstrate their distinct Personal glory, that, in this respect,\nthey might receive adoration and praise from men; the Father, as sending\nour Saviour, to be a Redeemer; the Son, as taking that character and\nwork upon him; and the Spirit, as applying the redemption purchased by\nhim.\n\nMoreover, he was to make a public proclamation that salvation was\nattainable; and that the way to attain it, was by sinners coming to him\nas a Mediator, by whom they might have access to the Father; and to\ninvite them to come to him by faith; as he often does in the gospel. He\nwas also to let them know, that this faith is the gift of God, and in\nwhat way they may expect to attain it, to wit, in a constant attendance\non the ordinances of his own appointment; and, to encourage them\nhereunto, that there are many great and precious promises, which are all\nput into his hand, to apply and make good to his people. These, and many\nother things, which contain in them the sum and substance of the gospel,\nare what we understand by the will of God, which Christ communicates, as\na Prophet, to his church. As it may be observed, that these doctrines\nare such as are matter of pure revelation, which could not have been\nknown without it, as well as of the highest importance, and therefore\nworthy to be made known by so excellent a Person. And this leads us to\nconsider,\n\nIII. The persons to whom Christ reveals the will of God, namely, the\nchurch; to them the lively oracles of God are committed; and they are\nbuilt on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ\nhimself being the chief Corner-stone. As for the world, which is\nsometimes opposed to the church, it is said, that, _by wisdom it knew\nnot God_, 1 Cor. i. 21. that is, not in such a way as he is revealed in\nthe gospel; but the church, which Christ loved, and for which he gave\nhimself, is said to be _sanctified by the word_, Eph. v. 26. and _to\nthem it is given, to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven; but to\nothers it is not given_, Matt. xiii. 11. so that the church is the seat,\nand the object of the execution of Christ\u2019s prophetical, as well as of\nhis other offices; _They are taught by him as the truth is in Jesus_,\nEph. iv. 21.\n\nIV. We are now to consider the way and means by which Christ reveals the\nwill of God to the church; there are two ways by which this is done.\n\n1. Objectively, which is an external method of instruction, the effect\nand consequence whereof is our hearing of him by the hearing of the ear,\nor as the apostle calls it, our _having the form of knowledge, and of\nthe truth in the law_, Rom. ii. 20. This instruction Christ is said to\ngive by the word: And this he did; first, by publishing the glad tidings\nof salvation in his own Person, which he mentions, as one great end for\nwhich he was sent into the world, as he says, _I must preach the kingdom\nof God, for therefore am I sent_, Luke iv. 43. and accordingly he styles\nhimself, _The Light of the world_, John viii. 12. and it is said, that\n_he was anointed to preach good things unto the meek, sent to bind up\nthe broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening\nof the prison to them that are bound_, Isa. lxi. 1. and when he is\nrepresented, as complying with the call of God, and _delighting to do\nhis will_, he adds, _I have preached righteousness in the great\ncongregation; lo, I have not refrained my lips, O Lord, thou knowest, I\nhave not hid thy righteousness within my heart, I have declared thy\nfaithfulness and thy salvation; I have not concealed thy\nloving-kindness, and thy truth, from the great congregation_, Psal. xl.\n9, 10. And as Christ preached the gospel in his own Person, so, when he\nleft the world, he gave commission to others to preach it, and his\nSpirit to instruct them what they should deliver, by whose inspiration\nhis word was committed to writing, which is the fountain of all truth;\nand, by this means, the church attains, as at this day, the knowledge\nthereof.\n\n2. Our Saviour reveals the will of God to his people, in a subjective\nway, which is internal, whereby he deals with their hearts, which he\ndisposes and fits to receive the truth: Hereby he opens the eyes of the\nunderstanding, to see a beauty and glory in the gospel, and inclines all\nthe powers and faculties of the soul to be conformed to it; and this he\ndoes more especially in those in whom he executes his prophetical office\neffectually, unto salvation. This is styled, in this answer, Christ\u2019s\nexecuting his prophetical office by his Spirit, as distinguished from\nthe execution thereof by his word. We read sometimes of the Spirit\u2019s\nteaching us, in scripture as our Saviour tells his disciples, that He,\nviz. the Spirit, _would guide them into all truth_, John xvi. 13. and of\nbelievers _having their souls purified, in obeying the truth, through\nthe Spirit_, 1 Pet. i. 22. and at other times of Christ\u2019s teaching by\nhis Spirit. Now there is no essential difference between Christ\u2019s\nteaching as God, and the Spirit\u2019s teaching, since the divine glory of\nthe Son and Spirit, to which this effect is attributed, is the same: But\nChrist\u2019s teaching by his Spirit, only denotes, as was before observed\nunder a foregoing answer, the subserviency of the Spirit\u2019s acting\nherein, to Christ\u2019s executing this branch of his prophetical office,\nwhereby he demonstrates his personal glory[141].\n\nV. We are now to consider the various ages in which Christ is said to\nexecute this office. That he did this after his incarnation; first, in\nhis own Person, and then, by taking care that his gospel should be\npreached in all succeeding ages, until his second coming, has been\nalready considered. We may also observe, that Christ executed his\nprophetical office before his incarnation: Thus it is said, that, _by\nhis Spirit, he preached unto the spirits in prison_, that is, to the\nworld before the flood, who are represented in the words immediately\nfollowing, as _disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited\nin the days of Noah, while the ark was preparing_, 1 Pet. iii. 19, 20.\nso that Noah who was a prophet, was his inferior minister, raised up,\nand spirited by him, to preach to the world, which upon that account, is\ncalled Christ\u2019s preaching, and accordingly herein he executed his\nprophetical office. And he is also said to have given the law from mount\nSinai, as the apostle\u2019s words seem to intimate, when he says, _Whose\nvoice shook the earth_, Heb. xii. 26. to wit, mount Sinai, which\ntrembled when he gave the law from thence; and that this refers to our\nSaviour, appears from the words immediately foregoing, wherein it is\nsaid, _See that ye refuse not him that speaketh_, namely, Christ; _for\nif they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth_, to wit, from\nmount Sinai, or when he spake on earth, _much more shall not we escape\nif we turn away from him, that speaketh from heaven; whose voice then\nshook the earth_, &c. ver. 25.\n\nMoreover, that he executed his prophetical office before his\nincarnation, and thereby led his church into the knowledge of divine\ntruth, is evident, from the account we have, in scripture, of his\nappearing to them in the form of a man, or an angel, which he more\nfrequently did, before the word of God was committed to writing, and\nafterwards occasionally in following ages: Thus he appeared to Moses in\nthe burning bush, and sent him into Egypt to demand liberty for Israel,\nand afterwards he led them through the red sea, as appearing in the\npillar of the cloud and fire; and he is described, as _the angel which\nwas with Moses in the church in the wilderness which spake to him in\nmount Sinai, and with our fathers, who received the lively oracles_,\nActs vii. 38. which is a farther proof of what was before mentioned,\nthat he gave the law from thence; and while they travelled through the\nwilderness, he _led them about_, or went before them, in the pillar of\ncloud, and _instructed them_, Deut. xxxii. 10. so that all the knowledge\nof divine things, which they attained to, was the result of the\nexecution of his prophetical office unto them. And when at any time they\nopposed Moses, his under-minister, he appeared in Person and vindicated\nhim; as in that particular instance, occasioned by Aaron\u2019s and Miriam\u2019s\nspeaking against him, wherein it is said, _The Lord came down in a\npillar of a cloud, and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and said, If\nthere be a prophet among you, I, the Lord, will make myself known unto\nhim in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream; my servant Moses is\nnot so, who is faithful in all mine house_, Numb. xii. 5-7. which is a\nfarther intimation, that Christ then executed his prophetical office, by\ninspiring the prophets, who were raised up at that time.[142]\n\nTo conclude this head, we may observe the difference between Christ\u2019s\nexecuting his Prophetical office, before and after his incarnation. In\nthe former of these, as was but now hinted, he occasionally assumed the\nlikeness of the human nature, that he might the better converse with\nman, but was not really incarnate; in the latter, he delivered the mind\nand will of God, as dwelling in our nature. Before this, he discovered\nwhat was necessary to be known by the church at that time, and gave them\nthose promises which related to the work of our redemption, to be\nperformed by him: but, in the present execution of his Prophetical\noffice, he opens a more glorious scene, and represents all those\npromises, as having their accomplishment in him, and displays the divine\nperfections, in bringing about our salvation, in their greatest beauty\nand lustre.\n\nFootnote 140:\n\n See Vol. I. Page 347-350.\n\nFootnote 141:\n\n See Vol. I. Page 291, 292.\n\nFootnote 142:\n\n _The force of this argument, and the application of these and several\n other scriptures to Christ, depend upon this supposition, which, we\n take for granted, and, were it needful, might easily be proved, that\n whenever a divine person is said, in scripture, to appear in the form\n of an angel, or to appear in a cloud as a symbol, or emblem of his\n presence, this is always meant of our Saviour._ But compare Watts\u2019s\n Works, 5 vol. 381, and Edwards\u2019s Works, 4 vol. 491.\n\n\n\n\n Quest. XLIV.\n\n\n QUEST. XLIV. _How doth Christ execute the office of a Priest?_\n\n ANSW. Christ executeth the office of a Priest, in his once offering\n himself a sacrifice, without spot, to God, to be a reconciliation\n for the sins of his people, and in making continual intercession for\n them.\n\nIn considering Christ\u2019s Priestly office, as described in this answer, we\nmay observe the two great branches thereof, namely, the offering himself\na sacrifice; and making intercession. There are several scriptures which\nexpressly mention both of them: thus he is said, _through the eternal\nSpirit, to have offered himself without spot, to God_, Heb. ix. 14. and\nthen described as having _entered into heaven, now to appear in the\npresence of God for us_, ver. 24. and elsewhere the apostle speaks of\nhim, as _having an unchangeable priesthood, and being able to save them\nto the uttermost that come unto God by him_, and that this is founded on\nhis offering up himself, and making intercession for them, chap. vii.\n24, 25, 27. In considering this, we may observe,\n\nI. The reason of his being styled a Priest, which denomination was taken\nfrom those who exercised the priestly office under the ceremonial law,\nwho were types of him, as such: accordingly we may consider; that the\noffice of the priesthood was executed by sundry persons, appointed to\nthis service. A priest was a public minister, who was to serve at the\naltar, _to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins_, Heb. v. 1. That\nthese were offered in all the ages of the church, after the fall of man,\nappears, from the sacrifice that Abel offered, which the apostle calls\nan _excellent one_, and, upon this occasion, says, that _he obtained\nwitness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts_, Heb. xi. 4.\nand therefore it follows, that it was instituted by him: yet it does not\nappear that there was, in that early age of the church, a set of men\nsolemnly and publickly invested in this office: but the heads of\nfamilies are generally supposed to have been the public ministers in\nholy things, and particularly priests, though they do not appear to have\nbeen then so styled; and thus it continued till about the time that God\nbrought Israel out of Egypt, when, by his appointment, all the\nfirst-born of the children of Israel were consecrated to him; and these\nofficiated as priests, during that small interval of time, till the\npriesthood was settled in the tribe of Levi, upon which occasion God\nsays, _I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel,\ninstead of all the first-born, because all the first-born are mine; for\non the day that I smote all the first-born, in the land of Egypt, I\nhallowed unto me all the first-born in Israel_, Numb. iii. 12, 13. And,\nwhen God gave the ceremonial law from mount Sinai, he appointed that\ntribe to minister as priests in holy things. Of these some had one part\nof the ministry of the sanctuary committed to them, and others another;\nparticularly the priesthood, or the charge of offering gifts and\nsacrifices, was more, especially committed to the family of Aaron, of\nwhich the eldest son, in their respective generations, was generally\nadvanced to the high priesthood, and other descendants from him were\ncommon priests, who acted under, or were assistants to him in all the\nparts of his ministry, excepting that which respected his entering into\nthe holy of holies. These were invested in their respective offices by\nunction, though the high priest\u2019s office and unction had some things\npeculiar in it, in which it exceeded theirs; and they were all types of\nChrist\u2019s priesthood, though the high priest was so in an eminent degree;\nwhich leads us to consider,\n\nII. The Priesthood of Christ, as typified under the ceremonial law, and\nthat either by the service which was commonly performed by the high\npriest, and other priests under him, or as it was typified by\nMelchizedec, who is occasionally mentioned in scripture, as shadowing\nforth Christ\u2019s Priesthood in some particular instances, which were not\ncontained in other types thereof.\n\n1. We shall speak concerning the priests under the law, as types of\nChrist\u2019s Priesthood, and particularly shew wherein their priesthood\nagrees with, or differs from his.\n\n(1.) Wherein they agree.\n\n_1st, Every high priest was taken from among men_, as the apostle\nobserves, Heb. v. 1. _and was ordained for men in things pertaining to\nGod_. And, to this we may add, that he was taken from among his\nbrethren, and so must be a member of that church, in whose name he\nadministered, and of which he was the head, by the dignity of his\noffice. In this, he was a lively type of Christ, who, in order to his\nbeing an High Priest, became man, that he might perform this ministry\nfor men in things pertaining to God. It is true, the validity of his\noffice, or the efficacy thereof to answer its designed end, arose from\nthe dignity of his Person, as God; yet the matter thereof, or the\nministry he performed, required that he should be taken from among men,\nand have all the essential properties of the human nature; so that, as\nthe high priest was taken out of the church, or from among his brethren,\nand, by office, was the head thereof, Christ was a member of the church,\nand, as such, complied with those ordinances which God had instituted\ntherein, and from the dignity of his Person and office, was the Head\nthereof: as a Member of it, he was exposed to the same temptations and\nmiseries as they are, and so is able to sympathize with, and succour\nthem under all their temptations, Heb. iv. 15. compared with chap. v. 2.\nand as the Head thereof, he manages all affairs relating to it, and\nexpects that all his people should be entirely subjected to him.\n\n_2dly_, The matter of the priest\u2019s office, or the things that were\noffered by him, were, as was before observed, gifts and sacrifices\noffered for the remission of sins; which blessing could not be attained\nwithout shedding of blood, as the apostle observes, _without shedding of\nblood there is no remission_, chap. ix. 22. Thus Christ was to redeem\nhis people, and procure forgiveness of sins, and make atonement for them\nby sacrifice, or by the shedding of blood.\n\n_3dly_, After the high priest had offered sacrifices, there was another\npart of that ministry, which was peculiar to himself, in which he was an\neminent type of Christ, which he performed but once a year, to wit, on\nthe great day of expiation, when he went into the holiest of all within\nthe vail, with blood and incense; the blood he sprinkled on the\nmercy-seat over the ark, and caused the smoke of the incense to ascend\nand cover the mercy-seat, and from thence he received an intimation from\nGod, that the sacrifices, which he had offered for the people, were\naccepted, after which he went out, and blessed them, in the name of the\nLord; in all which, he was a lively type of Christ\u2019s executing his\nPriestly office, chap. ix. 3, 7. compared with Lev. xvi. 14. who first\noffered an acceptable sacrifice for us on earth, and then entered into\nheaven, (which was typified by the priest\u2019s entering into the holy of\nholies) to present his sacrifice before God, and to make intercession\nfor us; and, as the consequence hereof, he blesses his people, in\nturning them from all their iniquities, and in conferring all the other\nfruits and effects of his sacrifice upon them. Thus Christ\u2019s Priesthood\nwas shadowed forth by that ministry, which was performed by the priests\nunder the ceremonial law; nevertheless,\n\n(2.) There were many things in which they differed; as,\n\n_1st_, The priests under the law were mere men; but Christ, though truly\nman, was more than a man. Though he was made, in all the essential\nproperties of the human nature, like unto us; yet he had a divine\nnature, in which he was equal with God; and therefore his ministry could\nnot but be infinitely more valuable, than that of any others, who were\ntypes of him.\n\n_2dly_, The priests under the law were of the tribe of Levi, and\ntherefore theirs is called, by the apostle, _The Levitical priesthood_,\nHeb. vii. 11. But our Saviour, as Man, was of the tribe of Judah, and\ntherefore did not derive his priesthood from them by descent, as they\ndid from one another, chap. vii. 13, 14.\n\n_3dly_, The sacrifices which were offered by the priests under the law,\nwere no other than the blood of beasts, appointed for that purpose; but\nChrist offered his own blood, chap. ix. 12,14.\n\n_4thly_, The priests under the law were sinners; accordingly Aaron was\nobliged _first_ to offer up _sacrifice for his own sins, and then for\nthe peoples\u2019_, chap. vii. 27. but Christ needed not to do this, for _he\nwas holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners_, ver. 26.\n\n_5thly_, The sacrifices offered by the priests under the law, could not\nexpiate, or _take away sins_, chap. x. 4. but Christ, by the offering\nthat he has made, has _for ever perfected them that are sanctified_, or\nmade a full atonement for all sin. Now since it is said, that it was\nimpossible for sin to be expiated by the sacrifices under the law, we\nare to enquire in what sense atonement was, or could not be made\nthereby: if the sin was of such a nature, or that it was punishable by\nhuman judicature, the making atonement by sacrifice, in many instances,\nput a stop to the prosecution, and took away the guilt, which the person\nhad contracted, as to any farther proceedings of men against him; for\nthis was an ordinance appointed by God, in which the offender had an\nexternal and visible recourse to the blood of Jesus, signified by the\nblood which he offered; and this is supposed to have been accompanied\nwith repentance for the sin committed, which gave satisfaction to the\nchurch, as to what concerned this matter, as offensive to them; and they\ncould demand no more of the offender, in order to their declaring, that,\nso far as they were judges, his guilt was expiated, by that which was\nsignified by the sacrifice which he brought, which was offered for him,\nand therefore the crime that he committed was pardoned.\n\nIt is true, there were some crimes that were to be punished with death;\nand, in this case, the church was not to receive satisfaction by\nsacrifice, nor were proceedings against the guilty person to be stopped\nby this means: and, among other crimes, that of wilful murder was one\nwhich admitted of no sacrifice; so, I think, the meaning of what the\nPsalmist says, is to be understood, _Thou desirest not sacrifice, else\nwould I give it_, Psal. li. 16. as implying, that the guilt of blood was\nsuch, that he had hereby forfeited his life, which, though no subject\nhad power enough to take away, yet God might, for this, have set his\nface against him, and have cut him off, in a visible manner, from among\nhis people, as he often did, when crimes were not punished in a legal\nway. This punishment God graciously remitted, when he told him, by\nNathan, that _he had put away his sin, he should not die_, 2 Sam. xii.\n13. and David, when he testifies his repentance, in this Psalm, would\nhave offered sacrifice, but he finds that none was ordained for the sin\nhe had committed. In other cases, indeed, the church was satisfied,\nexcommunication, or some other punishment, prevented, and the offender\ntaken into favour, by his offering sacrifice, in which respect, this\nservice is called making atonement for him: but, in other respects, it\nwas impossible to expiate sin thereby, so as to procure justification in\nthe sight of God; for they could not expiate it, as to what concerns the\nconscience, as it is said, that _the sacrifices could not make him, that\ndid the service, perfect, as pertaining to the conscience_, Heb. ix. 9.\nso that, that guilt of sin, which burdens the consciences of men, as\nhaving more immediately to do with God, was taken away only by Christ\u2019s\nsacrifice; in which respect, the efficacy hereof far exceeds all the\nends and designs of the sacrifices, which were offered under the law.\nAnd this farther appears, inasmuch as these sacrifices were to be\nrepeated, there being a continual remembrance of sin; for this supposes,\nthat sin was not hereby wholly expiated in the sight of God: and, in\nthis, they also differ from the sacrifice Christ offered, inasmuch as\nthat, being effectual to take away sin, was offered but once, chap. x.\n10, 14.\n\n_6thly_, The priests under the law were mortal, and therefore the\npriesthood was successive; but Christ, as he was not from them by a\nlineal descent so he had no successor in his priesthood. In this, the\napostle opposes him to them, when he says, _They truly were many,\nbecause they were not suffered to continue, by reason of death; but this\nman, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood_, chap.\nvii. 23.\n\nAgain, as the priesthood ceased, in particular persons, by death, so the\nhigh priesthood was sometimes taken away from those that were advanced\nunto it, for some instances of maladministration: thus the high\npriesthood, for some time, descended in the line of Eleazar, the elder\nbranch of Aaron\u2019s family; and afterwards, during the reign of the\njudges, it was transferred to the younger branch of his family, namely,\nthe descendants from Ithamar, in which line it was when Eli was high\npriest; and afterwards, when his sons, by their vile behaviour,\nforfeited their right to the high priesthood, and God threatened that he\nwould take it away from his family, 1 Sam. ii. 30. compared with ver.\n35. and 1 Kings ii. 35. (which was accomplished when Abiathar, in the\nbeginning of Solomon\u2019s reign, was thrust from the priesthood) it again\ndescended in Zadock, to the elder branch of Aaron\u2019s family.\n\nAgain the priesthood itself was not designed to continue for ever, but\nonly during that dispensation; after which, there was to be no altar,\npriests, nor sacrifice: But Christ\u2019s priesthood, as it was unalienable,\nso it could never be forfeited by male-administration, or descend to any\nother; therefore he is said to be a _Priest for ever_, which seems to be\nthe meaning of that scripture, in which his priesthood is considered, as\ndifferent from the Levitical priesthood, as _those priests were made\nwithout an oath; but this with an oath, by him that said unto him, The\nLord sware, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever_, chap. vii.\n21. which oath not only signifies the establishing of him in his\npriesthood, but it secured to him that he should never fall from it.\n\nThere are other things in which Christ\u2019s priesthood differs from that of\nthe priests under the law, in that _they entered into the holy places\nmade with hands, but Christ into heaven it self_, chap. ix. 7. compared\nwith ver. 24. and then it was only the high priest that was to enter\ninto the holy of holies: But, as the apostle observes, that under the\ngospel, in the virtue of Christ\u2019s sacrifice, all believer\u2019s are admitted\ninto the holiest of all, that is, they have access through faith, into\nthe presence of God, by the blood of Jesus.\n\nAnd lastly, under the law, there was a certain order of men that were\npriests, and yet all the people were not so; but, under the\ngospel-dispensation, believers are styled, an _holy_ and _a royal\npriesthood_, and _the sacrifices they offer up, are spiritual\nsacrifices, acceptable to God, by Jesus Christ_, 1 Pet. ii. 5, 9. And\nthis leads us,\n\n2. To consider Christ\u2019s priesthood, as typified by Melchizedek,\nconcerning whom it is said, in Gen. xiv. 18, 19, 20. that Melchizedek,\n_king of Salem, brought forth bread and wine to Abraham, returning from\nthe slaughter of the kings; and he was priest of the most high God, and\nhe blessed him_, &c. And this is referred to, as tending to set forth\nChrist\u2019s priesthood, in Psal. cx. 4. _The Lord hath sworn and will not\nrepent; thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek_; and\nthe apostle, in Heb. vii. refers to these scriptures, which are the only\nplaces of the Old Testament where this is mentioned, and applies them to\nChrist\u2019s priesthood as containing many things which were not typified by\nthe Aaronical priesthood. And it may be observed, that when the apostle\nenters on this subject, he premises this concerning it, that it\ncontained a very great difficulty, as he says, _Of whom_ [i. e.\n_Melchizedek_] _we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered_,\nHeb. v. 11. that is, hard to be explained, so as to be fully understood;\nit will be no strange thing therefore if we cannot fully explain it, or\nassert some things concerning it, which are only probable; and certainly\nthis observation of the apostle should induce us to treat on this\nsubject with the greatest humility and modesty. As to what we have to\nsay concerning it, I hope we shall advance nothing contrary to the\nanalogy of faith, how difficult soever some phrases, used in scripture,\nrelating thereunto, may seem to be: And the method in which we shall\nproceed, shall be; _first_, to enquire who this Melchizedek was; and,\n_secondly_, how we have herein an eminent type of Christ\u2019s priesthood in\nsome things, in which it was not shadowed forth by the Aaronical\npriesthood.\n\nWe shall now enquire who this Melchizedek probably was; and here we pass\nby the conjecture of some who lived in an early age of Christianity,\nwhom Epiphanius mentions[143], who supposed that he was the Holy Ghost;\nwhich appears to be a very absurd notion, inasmuch as we never read in\nscripture, of the Holy Ghost\u2019s appearing in the form of a man, nor of\nhis performing any of those offices which belong to the Mediator; and\ntherefore it is equally contrary, to the tenor of scripture, to call him\nthe priest of the most high God, as it is to call the Father so; and\nthus Melchizedek is styled, in the scripture we are explaining. I shall\nadd no more, as to this ungrounded opinion; but proceed to consider that\nwhich is more commonly acquiesced in, namely,\n\n_First_, That he was a man: But when it is farther enquired, what man?\nthere are three different opinions relating hereunto.\n\n(1.) The Jews generally conclude that he was Shem, the son of Noah, as\nalso do many other ancient and modern writers, who pay a deference to\ntheir authority and reasoning[144]. The principal thing that induces\nthem to be of this opinion, is, because it appears, from\nscripture-chronology, that Shem was living at that time, when Abraham\nreturned from the slaughter of the kings[145]. And they farther add,\nthat Shem, having received the patriarchal benediction from his father,\nmight truly be reckoned the greatest man in the church, and that both as\na priest and a king, as Melchizedek is described to be. But there are\ntwo very considerable objections against this opinion, which have weight\nenough in them, if not to overthrow it, at least to make it very\ndoubtful: namely,\n\n_1st_, That Shem\u2019s father, mother, and descent, together with the\nbeginning of his life, and afterwards the end thereof, were well known,\nthe year when he was born, and the time that he lived, being\nparticularly mentioned in scripture; and therefore the apostle could not\nsay concerning him, as he does concerning Melchizedek, that _he was\nwithout father, without mother, without descent having neither beginning\nof days, nor end of life_; meaning, as most expositors suppose, that he\nwas so, because these were not known, or mentioned in scripture.\n\n_2dly_, It is very plain from scripture, that Shem\u2019s place of abode was\nnot in the land of Canaan, and therefore he could not be said to be king\nof Salem, that is as it is understood by the greatest number of\nexpositors, of Jerusalem; since this was the seat of the posterity of\nHam, one of Shem\u2019s brethren; accordingly from Canaan, his son, that land\ntook its name. This evidently appears from what is said in Gen. x. 6-20.\nwhere the Jebusite, Emorite, Hivite, and other inhabitants of the land\nof Canaan, are said to be the descendants of Ham. For these reasons,\nMelchizedek does not appear to have been Shem.\n\n(2.) There is one learned writer, who conjectures that this Melchizedek\nwas Ham[146], which, indeed, agrees very well with the place of his\nresidence: But there are other things which render this opinion not in\nthe least probable; not only because the same thing may be observed of\nHam, as was before of Shem, that he could not be said to be without\nfather, without mother, without beginning of years, and end of life: But\nit may farther be said concerning him, that he had not received the\npatriarchal benediction from Noah, his posterity having had a curse\nentailed upon them, as it is said, in Gen. ix. 25. _Cursed be Canaan_.\nTherefore some question, whether Ham might be reckoned a member of the\nchurch,[147] much more whether he deserved to be called a priest of the\nmost high God, and king of righteousness; though it is true, this\nauthor[148] supposes, that Ham was not cursed by Noah, but only Canaan\nhis son, and his posterity; therefore he might have been an excellent\nperson, and deserved the character given of Melchizedek. But there are\nvery few who will be convinced by this method of reasoning; and\ntherefore we pass it over, and proceed to consider,\n\n(3.) That the greatest part of divines suppose, that it is not only the\nsafest, but most probable way of solving this difficulty, to confess,\nthat it is impossible to determine who he was, and that the Holy Ghost\nhas purposely concealed this matter, from us, that he might be a more\neminent type of Christ; and therefore they suppose him to have been a\ncertain unknown king and priest residing at Jerusalem, at that time when\nAbraham was met by him, and that this ought to put a full stop to all\nfarther enquiries about him: upon which account, it may well be said,\nconcerning him, that he was without father, without mother, _&c._ that\nis, these were not known; and what does not appear to be, is sometimes\nsaid, in scripture, not to be. Thus concerning their opinion, who\nsuppose that he was a man.\n\n_Secondly_, There is another opinion concerning him, which though not so\ncommonly received as the first and third above mentioned, which though\nprobably it may not be without some difficulties attending it, yet it\nvery much deserves our consideration, namely, that Melchizedek was our\nLord Jesus Christ himself, assuming, at that time, the form of a man,\nand personating a priest and a king, as he did on several occasions,\ndesigning thereby to prefigure his future incarnation[149][150] And it\nis argued in defence of this opinion,\n\n_1st_, That when the apostle describes him as king of Salem, he does not\nhereby intend Jerusalem, or that at that time, he resided there: But, as\nhe explains it, in the words immediately following, it implies, that he\nwas _king of peace_, as this word Salem signifies; and accordingly he is\nset forth by two of those glorious titles, which are given him elsewhere\nin scripture, namely, king of righteousness, as it is said concerning\nhim, that _a king shall rise and prosper, who is called, The Lord our\nrighteousness_, Jer. xxiii. 5, 6. and likewise, _The Prince of Peace_,\nIsa. ix. 6. And that which makes this opinion more probable, is, that it\ndoth not appear that Jerusalem was called Salem, which is supposed to be\na contraction of the word Jerusalem, till some ages after this; for,\ntill David conquered it, it was commonly known by the name of Jebus, 1\nChron. xi. 4.\n\n_2dly_, The apostle\u2019s description of him, as being _without father,\nwithout mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor\nend of life_, is rather applicable to a divine Person than a mere man.\nAnd as for the sense, which is generally given of these words, namely,\nthat he was without father, _&c._ because no mention is made thereof in\nscripture, _viz._ in those two scriptures in the Old Testament, in which\nhe is spoken of; this seems more strained and forced, than to understand\nthem according to the proper sense of the words; and, if, indeed, this\nimports nothing else, but the silence of scripture, with relation\nthereunto, there are many other persons who have as great a right to\nthis character as Melchizedek; as Job, Elijah, _&c._ whereas Melchizedek\nis thus described, as distinguished from all others.\n\nTo this we may add, (which will farther strengthen this argument) what\nthe apostle says, that in this respect, he was _made like the Son of\nGod_, that is, as is generally supposed, a type of him. Now, if his\nbeing without _father_, _mother_, _descent_, &c. in the common\nacceptation of the words, be inconsistent with his being a type of\nChrist to the church, in Abraham\u2019s time, then certainly that cannot be\nthe sense thereof; for he was, without doubt, a type of his priestly,\nand kingly office to him, and the church, in his days, as well as to\nthose who lived in following ages. Now, that he could not be a type\nthereof to many, who lived in that age, is evident; for they, who lived\nin the place where he was born and died, knew his father, mother,\ndescent, beginning, or end of life; therefore he was no type of Christ\u2019s\neternal priesthood to them. And as for Abraham, though he might not know\nhis father, mother, or descent, or the exact time when he was born, and\nso, in that respect he might, in part, he made like to the Son of God,\nto him, as signifying, that his priestly office was not derived by\ndescent, as the Aaronical priesthood descended from parents to children:\nyet he could not be a type of the everlasting duration of Christ\u2019s\npriestly office since he was then no more without end of days, in the\ncommon sense in which that expression was taken, than Abraham, or any\nother who lived with him, who could not be supposed to know the time, or\nplace, of their death. And, if, according to the common opinion,\nMelchizedek is said to be without father, mother, descent, _&c._ because\nthere is no mention thereof in scripture, this could not be a type to\nAbraham, or any other, before the word of God was committed to writing.\n\n_3dly_, There is another thing, which may be observed in the apostle\u2019s\ndescription of him, Heb. viii. 8. when he says, that _he liveth_,[151]\nand accordingly is opposed to those priests that _die_, by which he\nseems to be described as immortal, and so opposed to mortal men. It is\nnot said, that he once lived, and that we have no mention made of the\ntime of his death, but _he liveth_, which some conclude to be an\nascription of that divine perfection to him, whereby he is styled the\nliving God, or, as it is said in one of the following verses, _He ever\nliveth_, ver. 25. to denote his eternal priesthood; or, as he says\nconcerning himself elsewhere, _I am he that liveth, and was dead, and\nbehold I am alive for evermore_, Rev. i. 8.\n\n_4thly_, That which still makes this opinion more probable, is the\nconsideration of the place, where they, who defend the other side of the\nquestion, suppose he lived, and the people to whom he ministered as a\npriest, which seems not agreeable to the character given him, as the\ngreatest priest on earth. The inhabitants of Jerusalem, at that time,\nwere idolaters, or at least, they had no relation to the church of God,\nwhich was then seated in Abraham\u2019s family; for, when Abraham sojourned\nin Gerar, not many miles distant from it, in the south-west border of\nthe land of Canaan, he gives this description of it, that he thought\nsurely the fear of God was not in this place; and it can hardly be\nsupposed that Jebus, or Jerusalem, was much better. If the Canaanites\nhad been members of the true church, Abraham would not have lived as a\nstranger and sojourner amongst them, not desirous to converse with them.\nSince therefore Jerusalem, or Salem, was inhabited by those who were not\nworshippers of the true God, how could Melchizedek be said to be their\npriest, or a minister in holy things to them? for, though an holy man\nmay be a king over a wicked people, such an one cannot well be said to\nbe a priest to those, who desire not to be found in the exercise of\nGod\u2019s true worship.\n\n_5thly_, It seems farther probable, that Melchisedek was not a priest,\nor king, whose usual place of residence was Jerusalem, where he\nadministered and reigned, inasmuch as we do not read that Abraham, at\nany other time, conversed, or joined with him in worship, though the\nplace where he sojourned was but a few miles distant from it, which we\ncan hardly suppose that he would have neglected to do, or that we should\nhave had no account of any intercourse between these two men, (who must\nbe reckoned the greatest and best that lived on earth) besides that\nmentioned in the scripture we are now considering.\n\n_6thly_, This may be farther argued, from what the apostle says, that\nMelchisedek blessed Abraham, and infers, from thence, that he was\nsuperior to him, inasmuch as _the less is blessed of the better_, Heb.\nvii. 7. There are but two senses in which a person is said to bless\nanother; the one is, by praying for a blessing on him, or as God\u2019s\nmessenger, signifying, that he would bless him; and the other is, by\nconferring blessedness upon him, or making him blessed. Now, if\nMelchisedek had only blessed Abraham, in the former of these senses,\nwhich he might have done, had he been a mere man, the apostle could not\nhave inferred from hence, his superiority to Abraham; for the lowest of\nmen may in this sense, bless the greatest, that is, pray for a blessing\non them, and God might employ such to declare to others that they are\nblessed; yet it would not follow, from hence, that they are, in this\nrespect, greater than them. Melchisedek blessed Abraham, and therefore,\nas the apostle infers, was greater than him, and consequently he blessed\nhim, by making him blessed, or conferring some of those blessings, which\nhe has to bestow, as a divine Person, the Fountain of blessedness.\n\nThese are the most material arguments which are brought in defence of\nthis opinion; from whence it seems probable, that our Saviour on this\noccasion assumed the form of a Man, as he often did, and appeared to\nAbraham with the mien and likeness of a King and Priest; as he is said\nelsewhere to appear to Joshua, in the form of a warrior, with his sword\ndrawn in his hand, and soon discovered to him who he was; so we may\nsuppose, that at this time, he appeared to Abraham as a King, and a\nPriest, and discovered to him who he was, and the right he had to the\nspoils he had gained, of which he accepted the tithes, partly, to\nsignify that this was to be the way in which the priesthood was to be\nsupported in future ages; but principally to give herein a type of that\ndivine homage, which we owe to him, as the Priest and King of his\npeople. I will not be too tenacious of this side of the question, but,\nto me, it seems the more probable, especially if what is objected\nagainst it does not weaken the force of the arguments brought to support\nit; which is now to be considered.\n\n_Object. 1._ The place of Melchisedek\u2019s residence is said to be Salem,\nor Jerusalem, in the land of Canaan, where he was a king and priest. Now\nthis could not be said of our Lord Jesus Christ; for, as his kingdom was\nnot of this world, so he never resided, or fixed his abode in any part\nof it before his incarnation. It is true, he sometimes appeared then in\nthe form of a Man, or an Angel, that he might occasionally converse with\nhis people; yet he never continued long, or dwelt amongst them, till he\nwas made flesh; whereas, Melchizedek seems to be described as an\ninhabitant of the land of Canaan, dwelling in Salem, therefore it cannot\nhe meant of him.\n\n_Answ._ This objection takes some things for granted, that will not\nreadily be allowed, by those who entertain the contrary way of thinking,\n_viz._ that Salem is the name of a place, and that there he resided;\nwhereas it may be replied to this, that it is rather a character of his\nperson; for, if Tzedek be a character of his person, as signifying\nrighteousness, why should it be denied that Salem, from the Hebrew word\nShalom, is also a glorious character, belonging to his person?\nespecially considering the apostle explains both of them in this sense,\nwhen he says, that these words, by interpretation, are, _King of\nrighteousness, and King of peace_, Heb. vii. 2. and, if this be true,\nthere is no force in the other part of the objection, taken from his\nresiding in any particular place before his incarnation.\n\n_Object. 2._ It is farther objected, that our Saviour is said to be a\nPriest, _after the order of Melchisedek_, chap. vii. 17. and it is also\nadded, that _after the similitude of Melchisedek there ariseth another\nPriest_, ver. 15. meaning our Saviour; therefore he cannot be the same\nperson with Melchisedek.\n\n_Answ._ This objection is much more material than any other, which is\nbrought against this opinion, which, I am apt to think, determines the\nsentiments of many, who give into the commonly received opinion\nconcerning him: But, as it ought to be considered, whether the\narguments, in defence of the other side of the question, be conclusive;\nso it may be replied to it; that Christ might be called a Priest, after\nthe order of Melchisedek, though he were the person intended by him, if\nwe take the words in this sense; _viz._ that, by his appearing in the\nform of a Priest and a King to Abraham, he afforded a type, or figure,\nof what he would really be, and do, after his incarnation, and herein\ngave a specimen of his Priestly and Kingly office, which he would\nafterwards execute. And this might as well be said to be a type hereof,\nas any of his appearances, in the form of a man, were typical of his\nincarnation, which divines generally call a prelibation thereof, which\ndiffers very little from the sense of the word _type_.\n\nAs to what is said concerning another Priest, arising _after the\nsimilitude of Melchisedek_, though it may be reckoned a strong objection\nagainst our argument; yet let it be considered, that after the\nsimilitude of Melchisedek, imports the same thing as after the order of\nMelchisedek; and so it signifies, that there is a similitude, or\nlikeness, between what he then appeared to be, and what he really was,\nafter his incarnation. And as for his being called _another Priest_,\nthat does not imply that he was a Priest different from Melchisedek, but\nfrom the priests under the law; for the apostle, as appears by the\ncontext, is comparing Christ\u2019s Priesthood with the Aaronical; and\ntherefore, when he executed his Priestly office, after his incarnation,\nhe might well be styled _another Priest_, that is, a Priest not\ndescending from Aaron, but the anti-type of Melchisedek, as prefigured\nby this remarkable occurrence.\n\nThus concerning that difficult question, who Melchisedek was? All that I\nshall add is, whether it were Christ himself, or some other person, yet\nit is evident that there was herein a very eminent type of Christ\u2019s\nKingly and Priestly office; and more especially of his Priestly, as\ncontaining in it several things that were not shadowed forth by the\nAaronical priesthood; particularly, though the Aaronical priesthood\ncontained a type of Christ\u2019s making atonement, by shedding his blood;\nyet there was nothing in it that typified the glory of his Person, his\nimmortality and sinless perfection, the eternal duration of his\nPriesthood, or his being immediately raised up by God, for that end; nor\nwas there herein a type of the Kingly and Priestly office of Christ, as\nbelonging to the same Person, since the priests under the law were not\nkings, nor the kings priests.\n\nMoreover, Melchisedek\u2019s being represented as _without father, without\nmother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of\nlife_, plainly signifies, that the execution of his priestly office\ndepended immediately on God, who raised him up, as an extraordinary\nPerson, for this end, as well as that he remains a Priest for ever; so\nthat, if we take both these types together, we have a very plain and\nclear representation of Christ\u2019s Priestly office. And this leads us to\nconsider,\n\nIII. The necessity of Christ\u2019s executing this part of his Priestly\noffice, which consists in his making satisfaction to divine justice.\nThis is generally denied by those who oppose his divinity; and\nparticularly the Socinians, who maintain, that God pardons sin without\nsatisfaction.[152] And others, who do not altogether deny the\nsatisfaction of Christ, suppose, that God might have pardoned sin\nwithout it; but that it was more expedient to make a demand of it, than\nnot, inasmuch as his honour, as the Governor of the world, is secured\nthereby, and therefore that his demanding satisfaction, is the result of\nhis will; and accordingly, that he might have required and accepted of a\nsatisfaction, less valuable than what was given him by our Saviour: This\nopinion is equally to be opposed with the former, as derogatory to the\nglory of the divine perfections.\n\nNow, when we assert the necessity of satisfaction, we mean, that God\ncould not, in consistency with his holiness and justice, pardon sin\nwithout it; and that no satisfaction, short of that which Christ gave,\nis sufficient to answer the end designed thereby, or worthy to be\naccepted by God, as a price of redemption.\n\nAnd, when we assert that satisfaction was necessary, we would be\nunderstood as intending it in the same sense, as forgiveness of sin, or\nsalvation is so; the necessity hereof being conditional, or founded on\nthis supposition, that God designed to save sinners. This, indeed, he\nmight have refused to have done, and then there would have been no room\nfor satisfaction to be given to his justice: But, since God designed to\nbe reconciled to his people, and to bring them to glory, we cannot but\nassert the necessity of satisfaction in order thereunto; and, to prove\nthis, let it be considered,\n\n1. That the necessity hereof appears from the holiness of God; and\naccordingly,\n\n(1.) Inasmuch as he is infinitely perfect, he cannot but will and love\nthat which is most agreeable to his nature, and which contains the\nbrightest display of his image, which consists in righteousness and true\nholiness, as it is said, _The righteous Lord loveth righteousness_,\nPsal. xi. 7. And it follows, from hence,\n\n(2.) That he cannot but hate, and have an infinite aversion to, whatever\nis contrary hereunto; for, if his love of holiness be founded in the\nperfection of his nature, then his hatred of sin, which is opposite to\nit, must be founded therein: Thus it is said, _Thou art of purer eyes\nthan to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity_, Hab. i. 13. and\nelsewhere, _Thou hatest all workers of iniquity_, Psal. v. 5. Now God\u2019s\nhating sin, consists in his infinite opposition to it, and so it is\nnatural to him, or in his will, to punish it; and consequent thereunto,\nin his actual punishing of it. If the first of these be necessary, the\nothers must be so likewise; or, if he be an holy God, he cannot but\ndetermine to punish sin, and afterwards put his determination in\nexecution.\n\n(3.) It is fit he should manifest his hatred of sin, otherwise he could\nnot be glorified by his creatures, as an holy God; for he cannot have\nthe glory of any attribute ascribed to him, unless there be a visible\ndisplay thereof; therefore it is necessary to demonstrate his hatred of\nsin, by punishing it; and, hence an obligation arises from a necessity\nof nature, and not barely from an act of his will, to bring to condign\npunishment all sin, even that which he designs to pardon: But this could\nnot have been done without a demand of satisfaction to be given, by a\nsurety, in the sinner\u2019s behalf, which plainly evinces the necessity of\nsatisfaction, which was the thing to be proved.\n\n2. This farther appears, from the punishment threatened by the law of\nGod, which is also necessary. For the understanding of which, let it be\nconsidered,\n\n(1.) That God cannot but give a law to intelligent creatures, who, as\nsuch, are the subjects of moral government, and therefore under a\nnatural obligation to yield obedience to him: But this they could not\ndo, if the law were not given and promulgated.\n\n(2.) It was necessary for God to annex a threatning to his law, in which\nrespect punishment would be due to those who violate it, whereby\nobedience might be enforced, and that fear, which is excited by it,\nwould be an additional motive hereunto; otherwise the sinner would be\nready to conclude, that he might go on in his rebellion against God with\nimpunity.\n\n(3.) If this law be violated, as it is by sin, the truth of God, as the\nresult of the threatning annexed to it, obliges him to punish it, either\nin our own persons, or in the person of our Surety, that so the honour\nof his law might be secured, which he is obliged to vindicate, as it\ncontains a bright display of the glory of his perfections.\n\n3. If God could, consistently with his own perfections, pardon sin\nwithout satisfaction, he would not have sent his well-beloved Son to\nsuffer for it. This plainly appears from his wisdom and goodness. It is\nnot consistent with the glory of his wisdom, for him to bring about a\nthing with so much difficulty, and with such displays of his vindictive\njustice, in punishing one who never offended him, if he could have\nanswered the great end hereof on easier terms or have brought about the\nwork of our salvation without it; neither does it consist with his\ngoodness to inflict punishment, where it is not absolutely necessary,\nsince, agreeably to this perfection, he delights rather to extend\ncompassion, than to display his vindictive justice, if it might be\navoided. Accordingly he is described, in scripture, (speaking after the\nmanner of men) as punishing sin with a kind of regret, or reluctancy,\nHosea. xi. 8. Thus it is said to _be his strange work_, Isa. xxviii. 21.\nand that _he doth not afflict wilingly, nor grieve the children of men_,\nLam. iii. 33. but on the other hand, _delighteth in mercy_, Micah vii.\n18. Therefore if he could, consistently with his perfections, have\npardoned sin without satisfaction, he could not have commanded the sword\nof his vindictive justice to _awake against the man that is his fellow_,\nZech. xiii. 7. as an expedient to bring about an end, that might have\nbeen attained without it.\n\nMoreover, if God could have pardoned sin without satisfaction, then his\ngiving his own Son to perform it for us, would not have been such a\nwonderful instance of divine grace, as it is represented to be in\nscripture; for it could not have been the only expedient to bring about\nour salvation, if satisfaction were not absolutely necessary\nthereunto.[153]\n\nIV. We are now to consider what kind of satisfaction God demanded, for\nthe expiating of sin. There are many who do not pretend, in all\nrespects, to deny the necessity of satisfaction; but, when they explain\nwhat they mean by it, it amounts to little more than a denial thereof:\nThus the heathen, who had learned, by tradition that sacrifices were to\nbe offered, to make atonement for sin, concluded that these were\nsufficient to satisfy for it, and thereby to deliver from the guilt\nthereof. And some of the Jews, in a degenerate age of the church, seemed\nto have nothing else in view, and to have no regard to the spiritual\nmeaning thereof, or their reference to Christ\u2019s satisfaction, as types\nof it, when they rested in them, as supposing, that the multitude of\ntheir sacrifices were sufficient to satisfy for those vile abominations,\nwhich they were guilty of; upon which occasion, God expresses the\ngreatest dislike thereof, when he says, _To what purpose is the\nmultitude of your sacrifices unto me? I am full of the burnt-offerings\nof rams, and the fat of fed beasts, and I delight not in the blood of\nbullocks or of lambs or of he-goats_, Isa. i. 11. And elsewhere he tells\nthem, _I spake not to your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I\nbrought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or\nsacrifices_, Jer. vii. 22. He does not mean that these were not\ninstituted by him; but it is as though he had said, I did not hereby\nintend that they should be reckoned a sufficient price to satisfy my\njustice for sin. And, to fence against this supposition, the apostle\nsays, that _it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats\nshould take away sins_, Heb. x. 4. for they were far from being a\nsufficient price to satisfy God.\n\nMoreover, the Papists speak much of human satisfactions, consisting in\nvarious penances, fastings, leading a mortified life, parting with their\nestates, and submitting to voluntary poverty, with a design to make\natonement for sin. The main foundation of this opinion, is their\nsupposing, that, whatever satisfaction God demands for sin, it is the\nresult of his will, and therefore he might accept of the smallest\ninstance of obedience and suffering, as sufficient to compensate for it,\nbecause he has deemed it so; and therefore they distinguish between\ngiving satisfaction to God and to his justice. God, say they, may accept\nof, or be satisfied with the smallest price, instead of that which is\nmost valuable; whereas nothing can, properly speaking, be said to\nsatisfy justice, but that which has in it a value in proportion to what\nis purchased thereby. As to the former branch of this distinction, we\ndeny that God can accept of any thing as a price of redemption, but what\nhas a tendency to secure the glory of his perfections, and that, nothing\nless than an infinite price, can do, and therefore the distinction is\nvain, and nothing to their purpose; or, if they suppose that God can be\nsatisfied with what justice does not conclude sufficient, then it is\nblasphemous, and derogatory to the divine perfections. Therefore we can\nallow of no satisfaction, but what tends to set forth the glory, and\nfulfil the demands of divine justice;[154] accordingly, we are to\nconsider, that the satisfaction which was demanded by the justice of\nGod, for the expiation of sin, must contain in it two things; namely,\n\n1. It must be of infinite value, otherwise it would not be sufficient to\ncompensate for the injuries offered to the divine name by sin, which is\nobjectively infinite, and therefore deserves a punishment proportioned\nto it, and consequently the price demanded to satisfy for it, must be of\nequal value. The justice of God would cast the utmost contempt on any\nthing that falls short hereof: thus the prophet represents one, as\nmaking a very large overture, which one would think sufficient, if a\nfinite price were so, when he speaks, in a beautiful climax, or\ngradation, of coming before the Lord _with burnt-offerings_, and these\nwell chosen, _calves of a year old_, and a multitude of them; _Will the\nLord be pleased with thousands of rams_, a price which very few were\nable to give, _or with ten thousands of rivers of oil_? in which he\noffers more than it was possible to give; then he ascends yet higher,\nand, if it were sufficient, would part with _his first-born for his\ntransgression, the fruit of his body, for the sin of his soul_; all\nwhich is reckoned an inconsiderable price, not sufficient to procure the\nthing designed thereby; and therefore he that offers it, is advised\ninstead of pretending to satisfy divine justice by a finite price, _to\nwalk humbly with his God_, Micah vi. 7, 8. and, whatever obedience he is\nobliged to perform, not to have the vanity to think that this is a\nsufficient price to answer that end.\n\n2. Satisfaction must bear some similitude, or resemblance, as to the\nmatter of it, to that debt which was due from those for whom it was to\nbe given. Here we must consider what was the debt due from us, for which\na demand of satisfaction was made; this was twofold.\n\n_1st_, A debt of perfect and sinless obedience, whereby the glory of\nGod\u2019s sovereignty might be secured, and the honour of his law\nmaintained. This debt it was morally impossible for man to pay, after\nhis fall; for it implies a contradiction to say that a fallen creature\ncan yield sinless obedience; nevertheless, it was demanded of us, though\nfallen; for the obligation could not be disannulled by our disability to\nperform it.\n\n_2dly_, There was a debt of punishment, which we were liable to, in\nproportion to the demerit of sin, as the result of the condemning\nsentence of the law, which threatened death for every transgression and\ndisobedience. Now, to be satisfaction to the justice of God, it must\nhave these ingredients in it.\n\nAs to the infinite value of the price that was given, this is contested\nby none, but those who deny the divinity of Christ; and these arguments\nthat have been brought in defence of that doctrine; and others, by which\nwe have proved the necessity that our Mediator should be God, render it\nless needful for us, at present, to enlarge on this subject.[160] But\nthere are many, who do not deny the necessity of an infinite\nsatisfaction, who will not allow that it is necessary that there should\nbe a resemblance between the debt contracted, and satisfaction given;\nand, by these, it is objected,\n\n_Object. 1._ That the least instance of obedience, or one drop of\nChrist\u2019s blood, was a sufficient price to satisfy divine justice; in\ndefence of which they argue, that these must be supposed to have had in\nthem an infinite value; but nothing can be greater than what is\ninfinite, and therefore that one single act of obedience was sufficient\nto redeem the whole world of fallen men, or the whole number of fallen\nangels, if God had pleased to order it so.\n\n_Answ._ Though we do not deny that the least instance of obedience, or\nsufferings performed by our Saviour, would have been of infinite value,\ninasmuch as we do not conclude the infinity of obedience to consist in a\nmultitude of acts, or in its being perfectly sinless; nor do we deem his\nsufferings infinite, merely because they were exquisite, or greater than\nwhat mankind are generally liable to in this world, but because they\nwere the obedience and sufferings of a divine Person; neither do we\ndeny, that, according to the same method of reasoning, the least act of\nobedience and suffering, performed by him, would have been infinite.\nNevertheless, it does not follow from hence, that this would have been a\nsufficient price of redemption; for the sufficiency of the price does\nnot only rise from the infinite value thereof, but from God\u2019s will to\naccept of it; and he could not be willing to accept of any price, but\nwhat had a tendency to illustrate and set forth the glory of his\nholiness, as a sin-hating God, and of his sovereignty in the government\nof the world, in such a way, that the most fit means might be used to\nprevent the commission of it, and of his truth, in fulfilling the\nthreatnings denounced, which man was exposed to, by his violating the\nlaw. Now these ends could not be answered by one single instance of\nobedience, or suffering, and therefore God could not deem them\nsufficient; and it is plain that he did not, for, if he had, he would\nnot have delivered our Saviour to suffer all that he did; concerning\nwhom it is said, _He spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us\nall_, Rom. viii. 32.\n\nMoreover, it was necessary that redemption should be brought about in\nsuch a way, as would lay the sinner under the highest obligation to\nadmire the love, both of the Father and the Son. Now, if Christ had\nperformed only one act of obedience, or suffered in the least degree,\nthis instance of condescension, though infinite, would not have had so\ngreat a tendency to answer this end; nor could it have been said, as it\nis, with a great emphasis of expression, that _God commendeth his love\ntowards us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us_, Rom.\nv. 8.\n\n_Object. 2._ It is objected, by others, that Christ\u2019s active obedience\nwas no part of the satisfaction which he gave for us, inasmuch as this\nwas a debt due from him for himself, his human nature (in which alone he\ncould yield obedience) being under a natural obligation to perform it;\ntherefore he could not be said to pay that debt for us, which was due\nfor himself. As for his passive obedience, that, indeed, might be\nperformed for us, because, being an innocent person, he was not under\nany obligation to suffer, but by his own consent; but this cannot be\nsaid of his active obedience. And it is farther objected, that if he had\nperformed active obedience for us, this would have exempted us from an\nobligation to yield obedience ourselves, and consequently this doctrine\nleads to licentiousness.\n\n_Answ._ We allow that Christ as Man, was obliged to perform obedience,\nas a debt due from him, as a creature, and consequently, now he is in\nheaven, he is under the same obligation; though this has no reference to\nthe work of our redemption, which was finished before he went thither:\nnevertheless, the obedience he performed before his death, might be\ndeemed a part of that satisfaction which he gave to the justice of God\nfor us; for,\n\n(1.) His being under the law, was the result of his own voluntary\nconsent, inasmuch as his incarnation, which was necessary, to his\nbecoming a subject, was the result of the consent of his divine will.\nNow, if he came into the world, and thereby put himself into a capacity\nof yielding obedience by his own consent, which no other person ever\ndid, then his obedience, which was the consequence hereof, might be said\nto be voluntary, and so deemed a part of the satisfaction which he gave\nto the justice of God in our behalf.\n\n(2.) Though we do not deny that Christ\u2019s active obedience was a debt due\nto God for himself, yet it does not follow, from hence, that it may not\nbe imputed to us, nor accepted for us; even as that perfect obedience\nwhich was to have been performed by Adam, according to the tenor of the\nfirst covenant, though it were to have been imputed to all his\nposterity, was, nevertheless, primarily due from him for himself.\n\n(3.) As to that part of the objection, in which it is supposed, that\nChrist\u2019s obedience for us, would exempt us from an obligation to yield\nobedience, this is generally brought, by those who desire to render this\ndoctrine odious, and take no notice of what we say in explaining our\nsense thereof. Therefore, in answer to it, let it be considered, that,\nwhen we say Christ obeyed for us, we do not suppose, that he designed\nhereby to exempt us from any obligation to yield obedience to God\u2019s\ncommanding will, but only to exempt us from performing it with the same\nview that he did. We are not hereby excused from yielding obedience to\nGod, as a Sovereign, but from doing it with a view of meriting hereby,\nor making atonement for our defect of obedience, which was the result of\nour fallen state; and therefore we are to say, _When we have done all,\nwe are unprofitable servants; we have done that which was our duty to\ndo_, Luke xvii. 10. without considering it as that righteousness, by\nwhich we are to be justified in the sight of God. We understand our\nobligation to yield active obedience, in the same sense, as we are\nobliged patiently to suffer whatever afflictions God is pleased to lay\non us, from which we are not exempted by Christ\u2019s sufferings: the only\ndifference between them is, that his sufferings were penal and\nsatisfactory; he suffered for us, that hereby he might purchase for us\neternal life, which is not the end of a believer\u2019s suffering; therefore,\nwhy may it not be allowed, that Christ might perform obedience for us,\nand we, at the same time, not be excused from it?\n\n_Object. 3._ As to what concerns the sufferings of Christ, it is\nobjected, by others, that the whole of his passive obedience was not\ndemanded as a price of redemption for us but only what he endured upon\nthe cross, which was the greatest and most formidable part of his\nsufferings; and particularly those which he endured from the _sixth to\nthe ninth hour_, while there was _darkness over all the land_, in which\nhis soul was afflicted in an extraordinary manner, which occasioned him\nto cry, (Matt. xxvii. 45, 46.) _My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken\nme?_[161] As for his other sufferings, endured in the whole course of\nhis life, these are allowed to have been a convincing evidence of his\nlove to us, and designed, as an example, to induce us to bear\nafflictions with patience; but that it was only his sufferings upon the\ncross that were satisfactory, and that was the altar on which he offered\nhimself for us; which appears from those scriptures which speak of our\nredemption and justification, as the effect of his crucifixion and\ndeath, rather than of his sufferings in life.\n\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that, though redemption and salvation\nbe often attributed, in scripture, to Christ\u2019s death, or to his shedding\nhis blood upon the cross for us, yet there is, in all of them, a\nfigurative way of speaking, in which, by a Synecdoche, a part is taken\nfor the whole; therefore his sufferings in his life, though not\nparticularly mentioned therein, are not excluded. There is one\nscripture, in which, by the same figurative way of speaking, our\njustification is ascribed to Christ\u2019s active obedience, when it is said,\n_By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous_, Rom. v. 19. in\nwhich, though his passive obedience be not mentioned, it is not\nexcluded; therefore, when we read of Christ\u2019s sufferings on the cross,\nas being a part of his satisfaction, we are not to suppose that his\nsufferings in life are excluded. The apostle plainly intimates as much,\nwhen he says, _He humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even\nthe death of the cross_, Phil. ii. 8. he humbled himself not only in his\ndeath, but in all the sufferings he endured unto it, in the whole course\nof his life; therefore we must conclude, that what he endured in his\ninfancy, and that poverty, temptation, reproach, and contradiction of\nsinners against himself, and all the other miseries which he underwent,\nduring the whole course of his life, which were a part of that curse\nwhich was due to us for sin, were submitted to by him to expiate it, and\nconsequently were a part of that satisfaction.\n\nAs for the cross\u2019s being styled, as it is by some ancient and modern\nwriters, the altar, on which Christ offered himself, we think that\nlittle more than a strain of rhetoric; or, if it be designed to\nillustrate the opinion we are now opposing, we deny that it ought to be\ncalled the altar; for it is no where so styled in scripture, neither\nhave we ground to conclude, that the altar, upon which the sacrifices\nunder the law were offered, was a type of Christ\u2019s cross in particular;\nand, indeed, we have a better explication of the spiritual meaning\nthereof, given by Christ himself, when he speaks of the _altar_, as\n_sanctifying the gift_, Matt. xxiii. 19. alluding to what is said\nconcerning its being _most holy, and whatsoever touched it, shall be\nholy_, Exod. xxix. 37. from whence it is inferred, that the altar was\nmore holy than the gift, which was laid upon it, and it signifies, that\nthe altar, on which Christ was offered, added an excellency to his\noffering; whereas nothing could be said to do so, but his divine\nnature\u2019s being personally united to his human, which rendered it\ninfinitely valuable. This is therefore, the altar on which Christ was\noffered; or, at least this is that which sanctified the offering, and\nnot the cross on which he suffered[162].\n\nV. We shall now prove, that what Christ did and suffered, was with a\ndesign to give satisfaction to the justice of God; and, that what he\noffered, was a true and proper sacrifice for sin. All allow, that Christ\nobeyed and suffered; and even the Socinians themselves will not deny\nthat Christ suffered for us, since this is so plainly contained in\nscripture: But the main stress of the controversy lies in this; whether\nChrist died merely for our good, namely, that we might be hereby induced\nto believe the truth of the doctrines he delivered, as he confirmed\nthem, by shedding his blood, or that he might give us an example of\npatience and holy fortitude under the various evils we are exposed to,\neither in life or death? This is the sense in which they understand\nChrist\u2019s dying for us: But there is a great deal more intended hereby,\nto wit, that he died in our room and stead, or that he bore that for us,\nwhich the justice of God demanded as a debt first due from us, as an\nexpedient for his taking away the guilt of sin, and delivering us from\nhis wrath, which we were liable to. This will appear, if we consider,\n\n1. That he is, for this reason, styled our Redeemer, as having purchased\nus hereby, or delivered, us, in a judicial way, out of the hand of\nvindictive justice, which is the most proper, if not the only sense of\nthe word _redemption_. The Socinians, indeed, speak of Christ as a\nredeemer; but they understand the word in a metaphorical sense, as\nimporting his delivering us from some evils, that we were exposed to;\nnot by paying a price of redemption for us, but by revealing those laws,\nor doctrines, which had a tendency to reform the world, or laying down\nsome rules to direct the conversation of mankind, and remove some\nprejudices they had entertained; whereas we assert, that herein he dealt\nwith the justice of God, as offering himself a sacrifice for sin.\n\nThis appears from those scriptures that speak of his _soul_, as made an\n_offering for sin_, Isa. liii. 10. or his being _set forth to be a\npropitiation, to declare the righteousness of God for the remission of\nsins_, Rom. iii. 25. in which respect, he answered the types thereof\nunder the law, in which atonement is said to be made by sacrifice,\nwhich, being an act of worship, was performed to God alone, whereby sin\nwas typically expiated, and the sinner discharged from the guilt, which\nhe was liable to; and, in this respect Christ is said, as the Anti-type\nthereof, to have _offered himself without spot to God_, when he shed his\nblood for us, or to have _put away sin by the sacrifice of himself_,\nHeb. ix. 26. and to have _given himself for us, an offering and a\nsacrifice to God, for a sweet smelling savour_.\n\nMoreover, what he did and suffered, is styled a _ransom_, or price of\nredemption; and accordingly they, who were concerned therein, are said\nto be _bought with a price_, 1 Cor. vi. 20. and he saith, concerning\nhimself, that _he came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and\nto give his life a ransom for many_, Matt. xx. 28. We read, in\nscripture, of a person\u2019s paying a sum of money, as a _ransom for his\nlife_, when it was forfeited, by his having been the culpable occasion\nof the death of another, Exod. xxi. 29, 30. and if such a consideration,\nwhen exacted as a price of redemption, be styled a ransom, a person\u2019s\nlaying down his life for another, may, with equal propriety, be so\ncalled. And this Christ is said, in many scriptures, to have done for\nus; upon which account he is styled our Redeemer.\n\n_Object._ We oftentimes read, in scripture, of redemption, where there\nis no price paid: Thus Israel is said to be _redeemed out of Egypt_,\nDeut. vii. 8. _and Babylon_, Micah iv. 10. And elsewhere, speaking of\ntheir deliverance out of captivity, God saith, _I will redeem thee out\nof the hand of the terrible_, Jer. xv. 21. whereas there was no price of\nredemption paid for their deliverance, either out of Egypt or Babylon,\nbut it was by the immediate power of God. So Jacob, when he speaks of\nhis deliverance from evil by the angel, styles this, his _redemption\nfrom all evil_, Gen. xlviii. 16. Now, though we allow that the angel he\nthere speaks of, was our Lord Jesus Christ; yet the deliverance he\nwrought for Jacob was not by paying a price for him, but by exerting his\ndivine power in order thereto.\n\nMoreover, others are called redeemers, who have been God\u2019s ministers in\ndelivering his people: Thus Moses is called a _ruler and deliverer by\nthe hands of the angel, which appeared to him in the bush_, Acts vii.\n35. so our translators rendered it[163]: but it ought to be rendered a\n_Redeemer_; therefore there may be redemption without satisfaction.\n\n_Answ._ This objection, how plausible soever it may seem to be, is not\nunanswerable; and the reply which may be given to it, is, that though\ndeliverance from evil may be styled _redemption_, as it is oftentimes in\nscripture: the reason of its being so called, is, because of the\nreference which it has to that ransom that Christ was, after his\nincarnation, to pay for his people. This was the foundation of all that\ndiscriminating grace that God, in former ages, extended to his people,\nit was on the account hereof that he did not suffer them to perish in\nEgypt, or Babylon, and accordingly their deliverance is called a\n_redemption_, from thence; whereas, we never find that any deliverance,\nwhich God wrought for his enemies, who have no concern in Christ\u2019s\nredemption, is so called.\n\nAnd whereas Moses is styled, in that scripture but now referred to, a\n_Redeemer_, the deliverance he wrought for them, as an instrument made\nuse of by the angel that appeared to him, may, without any impropriety\nof expression, be called a redemption, and he a redeemer, inasmuch as\nthat deliverance that Christ wrought by him, was founded on the purchase\nwhich he designed to pay, otherwise Moses, would not have been so\nstyled.\n\n2. There are many scriptures that speak of Christ\u2019s obedience and\nsufferings, as being in our room and stead, whereby he performed what\nwas due from us to the justice of God which is the proper notion of\nsatisfaction. Thus we are to understand those expressions, in which he\nis said to _die for us_, as the apostle says; _In due time Christ died\nfor the ungodly, and while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us_,\nRom. v. 6, 8. by which we are to understand, that he endured those\nsufferings in life and death which we are liable to, with a design to\nprocure for us justification, reconciliation to God, and eternal\nsalvation, and herein he was substituted in our room and stead, as well\nas died for our good.[164]\n\nThat Christ died, in this sense, for his people, farther appears, from\nhis being therein said to bear their sins, as the apostle expresses it,\n_Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree_, 1 Pet. ii.\n24. and elsewhere it is said, _He was wounded for our transgressions, he\nwas bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon\nhim, and with his stripes we are healed_; and _the Lord hath laid on him\nthe iniquity of us all; He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, he was\ncut off out of the land of the living; for the transgressions of my\npeople was he stricken_, Isa. liii. 5-8. all which expressions plainly\ndenote that he suffered that which was due to them, or that he died in\ntheir room and stead.\n\nAnd this he is farther said to do, in a sense, in which none but he ever\ndied for any other, and therefore much more must be understood by it,\nthan his dying for the good of mankind. The apostle speaking of this\nmatter, opposes Christ\u2019s sufferings to his own, with respect to the end\nand design thereof, when he saith; _Was Paul crucified for you_, 1 Cor.\ni. 13. which is as though he should say, it is true, I have suffered\nmany things for the church\u2019s advantage: yet it would be a vile thing for\nyou to entertain the least surmise, as though my suffering were endured\nwith the same view that Christ suffered; for he died as a sacrifice for\nsin, that he might give a price of redemption to the justice of God,\nwhich no one else ever did.\n\n_Object. 1._ It is objected, to what hath been said in defence of\nChrist\u2019s dying in our room and stead, inasmuch as he bare our\niniquities, that these expressions denote nothing else but his taking\nthem away, which he might do, if he had not died in our room and stead.\nThus we have an explication of that scripture before mentioned, which\nspeaks of Christ\u2019s bearing our iniquities, wherein it appears that\nnothing is intended thereby but his taking away some afflictions we were\nliable to; as it is said, upon the occasion of his _casting out devils,\nand healing all that were sick_, that this was done _that it might be\nfulfilled, which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took\nour infirmities, and bare our sicknesses_, Mat. viii. 16, 17. which he\nmight be said to do, without his dying to satisfy the justice of God for\nus in our room and stead.\n\n_Answ._ There are two things to be considered in the death of Christ,\nwhich, though distinct, are not to be separated; one is, his bearing\nthose griefs, sorrows, or punishments, that were due to us for sin; the\nother is, his taking them away, as the effect and consequence of his\nhaving born or answered for them; and the design of the prophet Isaiah,\nin his liii. chapter, is to shew that Christ did both these, as appears\nby several expressions therein; accordingly when he is said, in ver. 4.\n_To have borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows_, both these senses\nare to be applied to it; one of which is explained by the apostle, in 1\nPet. ii. 24. _Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the\ntree_; and the evangelist, in the text under our present consideration\nexplains these words of the prophet in both senses, when he saith,\n_Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses_, that is, he\nsubmitted to give satisfaction for them, and, as the consequence\nthereof, healed those diseases which we were liable to, as the fruit of\nsin. The objection therefore taken from this scripture, against the\ndoctrine we are maintaining, is of no force; for though Christ took away\nthose miseries, which were the effects and consequences of sin, it doth\nnot follow that he did not do this, by making satisfaction for it.\n\n_Object. 2._ There are other ends of Christ\u2019s dying for us, mentioned in\nscripture, where though the same mode of speaking be used, different\nends are said to be attained thereby, from that of his giving\nsatisfaction to the justice of God: Thus it is said, that _he gave\nhimself for our sins that he might deliver us from this present evil\nworld_, Gal. i. 4. _that he might purify unto himself a peculiar people,\nzealous of good works_, Tit. ii. 14. and that he might hereby _leave us\nan example that we should follow his steps_, 1. Pet ii. 21. and that he\nmight acquire to himself some additional circumstances of glory, thus it\nis said, _He died, and rose and revived, that he might be Lord, both of\nthe dead and living_, Rom. xiv. 9. These, and such-like ends, are said\nto be attained by Christ\u2019s death, which do not argue that he died in our\nstead, but only for our advantage.\n\nAnd to this it may be added, that others are represented as suffering\nfor the church, as well as Christ, namely, for their good, where there\nis no difference, in the mode of speaking, from that other scripture, in\nwhich Christ is said to die for us. Thus the apostle saith, _I rejoice\nin my sufferings for you_, Col. i. 24. and this he explains elsewhere,\nwhen he speaks of his being afflicted for the church\u2019s _consolation and\nsalvation_, 2 Cor. i. 6.\n\n_Answ._ We do not deny but that there are other ends designed by\nChrist\u2019s sufferings and death, besides his giving satisfaction to divine\njustice, which are the result and consequence thereof; therefore we must\nconsider him as dying in our stead, and then the fruits and effects,\nwhich redound to our advantage; one is so far from being inconsistent\nwith the other, that it is necessary to it; and, in some of the\nscriptures but now mentioned, both these ends are expressed, the former\nbeing the ground and reason of the latter; as when it is said, _He gave\nhimself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil\nworld_: the meaning is, he first made satisfaction for sin, and then, as\nthe consequence thereof, in the application of redemption, he designed\nto deliver us from the evils we are exposed to in this world; and when,\nin another scripture before-mentioned, the apostle speaks of _Christ\u2019s\npurifying unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works_, he\nmentions this not as the chief, much less as the only design of his\ngiving himself for his people; but it is said, he did this first, _that\nhe might redeem them from all iniquity_, namely, by giving a\nsatisfaction to justice for them, and then, that having redeemed, he\nmight purify them to himself; and when it is said, that _he died, that\nhe might be Lord, both of the dead and living_, the meaning is, that he\nmight purchase that dominion which he hath over them as Mediator; or\nthat having satisfied divine justice for them, as a Priest, he might,\nhave dominion over them as a King; so that these two ends are not\ninconsistent with each other, and therefore the latter doth not destroy\nthe former.\n\nAnd as for that scripture, in which the apostle speaks of his sufferings\nfor the church, or for their _consolation and salvation_, we may\nobserve, that he doth not say that he suffered for them, much less, in\ntheir room and stead, or as a propitiation to make reconciliation, that\nhereby he might promote their consolation and salvation, as Christ did;\nmuch less is it said of any besides him, that _he gave his life a ransom\nfor them_, which is an expression peculiar to himself, wherein his death\nis represented as a price of redemption for them[165].\n\n3. That Christ died in our room and stead, and consequently designed\nhereby to give satisfaction to the justice of God for our sin, appears\nfrom his death\u2019s being typified by the sacrifices under the ceremonial\nlaw, which, it is plain, were substituted in the room of the offender,\nfor whom they were offered. We read _of the priest\u2019s laying his hand on\nthe head of the sacrifice, and confessing over it the iniquities_ of\nthose for whom it was offered, upon which occasion it is said to _have\nborn them_, Lev. xvi. 21, 22. And the consequence thereof was their\nbeing discharged from the guilt which they had contracted, which is\ncalled, making atonement for sin. Now that this was a type of Christ\u2019s\nmaking satisfaction for our sins, by his death, is evident, inasmuch as\nthe apostle having spoken concerning this ceremonial ordinance, applies\nit to him, when he saith, that _Christ was once offered to bear the sins\nof many_, Heb. ix. 28. And elsewhere, when referring to _the sacrifice\nof the Lord\u2019s passover_, as the paschal lamb was styled, Exod. xii. 27.\nHe says that _Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us_, 1 Cor. v. 7.\nAnd, as such, he is said _to be made sin for us, who knew no sin, that\nwe might be made the righteousness of God in him_, 2 Cor. v. 21. And as\nthey who were ordained to perform this service, are called priests,\nChrist, as typified thereby, is so styled.\n\nI am sensible it will be objected, that the sacrifices under the\nceremonial law were not instituted with a design to typify Christ\u2019s\ndeath; which would hardly have been asserted by any, as being so\ncontrary to the sense of many scriptures, had it not been thought\nnecessary to support the cause they maintain. But, having said something\nconcerning this before, in considering the origin of the ceremonial\nlaw[166], I shall only add, that it is very absurd to suppose that God\nappointed sacrifices not as types of Christ, but to prevent their\nfollowing the custom of the Heathen, in sacrificing to their gods, and\nthat they did not take their rites of sacrificing from the Jews, but the\nJews from them; and God, foreseeing that they would be inclined to\nfollow their example herein, indulged them as to the matter, and only\nmade a change with respect to the object thereof, in ordaining, that,\ninstead of offering sacrifice to idols, they should offer it to him. But\nthis runs counter to all the methods of providence in the government of\nthe church, which have been so far from giving occasion to it to\nsymbolize with the religion of the Heathen, in their external rites of\nworship, that God strictly forbade all commerce with them. Thus Abraham\nwas called out of Ur of the Chaldees, an idolatrous country, to live in\nthe land of Canaan, and there he was to be no other than a stranger, or\nsojourner, that he might not, by too great familiarity with the\ninhabitants thereof learn their ways. And afterwards the Jews were\nprohibited from having any dealings with the Egyptians; not because\ncivil commerce was unlawful, but lest this should give occasion to them\nto imitate them in their rites of worship; to prevent which, the\n_multiplying horses_ was forbidden, Deut. xvii. 16. upon which occasion\nthe church saith, in Hos. xiv. 3. _We will not ride upon horses, neither\nwill we say any more to the work of our hands, Ye are our gods_, that\nis, we will not do any thing that may be a temptation to us to join with\nthe Egyptians, or other Heathen nations, in their idolatry; therefore\ncertainly God did not ordain sacrifices in compliance with the Heathen,\nbut to typify Christ\u2019s death.\n\nThus we have endeavoured to prove that Christ gave satisfaction to the\njustice of God for sin, as he was a true and proper sacrifice for it. I\nmight, for the farther strengthening of this argument, have proved, that\nthe end of Christ\u2019s death, assigned by the Socinians, namely, that he\nmight make atonement for sin, can hardly be reckoned an expedient to\nconfirm any doctrine; for there are many instances of persons having\nlaid down their lives to confirm doctrines that have been false, and\nnothing more is proved hereby, but that the person believes the doctrine\nhimself, or else is under the power of delusion or distraction; whereas\na person\u2019s believing the doctrine he advances is no evidence of the\ntruth thereof: and as for our Saviour\u2019s confirming his doctrines, that\nwas sufficiently done by the miracles which he wrought for that end. And\nindeed, were this the only end of Christ\u2019s dying, I cannot see how it\ndiffers from the death of the apostles, and other martyrs, for the sake\nof the gospel; whereas Christ laid down his life with other views, and\nfor higher ends, than any other person ever suffered.\n\nAnd to this we may add, that if Christ died only to confirm his\ndoctrine, or, as it is farther alleged, by those whom we oppose, that\nherein he might give us an example of submission to the divine will and\npatience in suffering, this would have been no manner of advantage to\nthe Old Testament saints; for Christ could not be an example to them,\nnor were the doctrines, which they pretend he suffered to confirm, such\nas took place in their time. Therefore Christ was no Saviour to them,\nneither could they reap any advantage by what he was to do and suffer;\nnor could they have been represented as desiring and hoping for his\ncoming, or, as it is said of Abraham, _rejoicing to see his day_, John\nviii. 56. and if we suppose that they were saved, it must have been\nwithout faith in him. According to this method of reasoning, they not\nonly militate against Christ\u2019s being a proper sacrifice; but render his\ncross of none effect, at least to them that lived before his\nincarnation; and his death, which was the greatest instance of love that\ncould be expressed to the children of men, not absolutely necessary to\ntheir salvation.[167]\n\n_Object._ Before we close this head, we shall consider an objection\ngenerally brought against the doctrine of Christ\u2019s satisfaction, namely,\nthat he did not undergo the punishment due for our sins, because he did\nnot suffer eternally; nor were his sufferings attended with that\ndespair, and some other circumstances of punishment, which sinners are\nliable to in the other world.\n\n_Answ._ To this it may be answered, that the infinite value of Christ\u2019s\nsufferings did compensate for their not being eternal. And, indeed, the\neternity of sufferings is the result of their not being satisfactory,\nwhich cannot be applicable to those that Christ endured; and as for that\ndespair, attended with impatience, and other sins committed by those\nthat suffer eternal punishments, that arises from the eternal duration\nof them, as well as from the corruption of nature, which refuses to\nsubscribe to the justice of God therein, while complaining of the\nseverity of his dispensations.\n\nThus we have considered Christ\u2019s death, as a true and proper sacrifice\nfor sin. We might now take notice of an expression that is used in this\nanswer, which is taken from the words of the apostle, that _once offered\nhimself_, Heb. ix. 28. and that _without spot to God_, ver. 14. This\noffering being sufficient to answer the end designed, there was no need\nof repeating it, or of his doing any thing else with the same view; the\njustice of God having declared itself fully satisfied when he was raised\nfrom the dead. But having before considered the infinite value of what\nhe did and suffered, and its efficacy to bring about the work of our\nredemption, whereby it appears to be more excellent than all the\nsacrifices that were offered under the ceremonial law, I need not say\nany more on that subject; and as we have also considered Christ as being\nsinless, and therefore offering himself as a Lamb, without spot and\nblemish, and how this was the necessary result of the extraordinary\nformation and union of the human nature with his divine Person, and the\nunction which he received from the Holy Ghost; I shall only observe, at\npresent, what is said concerning his offering himself to God. This he is\nsaid to have done, in the scripture but now referred to, _through the\neternal Spirit_; which words are commonly understood of his eternal\nGodhead, which added an infinite value to his sacrifice, or, like the\naltar, sanctified the gift, which is certainly a great truth: But it\nseems more agreeable, to the most known sense of the word _Spirit_, to\nunderstand it concerning his presenting, or making a tender of the\nservice he performed by the hand of the eternal Spirit unto God, as an\nacceptable sacrifice.\n\nBut the main difficulty to be accounted for, in this scripture, is, what\nis objected by the Socinians, and others, who deny his deity, namely,\nhow he could be said to offer himself to God, since that is the same as\nto say, that he offered himself to himself, he being, as we have before\nproved, God equal with the Father. But there is no absurdity in this\nassertion, if it be understood concerning the service performed by him\nin his human nature, which, though it was rendered worthy to be offered,\nby virtue of its union with his divine Person, this act of worship\nterminated on the Godhead, or tended to the securing the glory of the\nperfections of that divine nature, which is common to all the divine\nPersons; and it is in this sense that some ancient writers are to be\nunderstood, when they say, that Christ may be said to offer up himself\nto himself, that is, the service performed in the human nature was the\nthing offered, and the object hereof, to which all acts of worship are\nreferred, was the divine nature, which belongs to himself as well as the\nFather.[168]\n\nVI. We shall now consider the persons for whom, as a Priest, Christ\noffered himself, and so enter on that subject, that is so much\ncontroverted in this present age, namely, whether Christ died for all\nmen, or only for the elect, whom he designed hereby to redeem, and bring\nto salvation; and here let it be premised.\n\nI. That it is generally taken for granted, by those who maintain either\nside of the question, that the saving effects of Christ\u2019s death do not\nredound to all men, or that Christ did not die, in this respect, for all\nthe world, since to assert this would be to argue that all men shall be\nsaved, which every one supposes contrary to the whole tenor of\nscripture.\n\n2. It is allowed, by those who deny the extent of Christ\u2019s death to all\nmen, as to what concerns their salvation, that it may truly be said,\nthat there are some blessings redounding to the whole world, and more\nespecially to those who sit under the sound of the gospel, as the\nconsequence of Christ\u2019s death; inasmuch as it is owing hereunto, that\nthe day of God\u2019s patience is lengthened out, and the preaching of the\ngospel continued to those who are favoured with it; and that this is\nattended, in many, with restraining grace, and some instances of\nexternal reformation, which (though it may not issue in their salvation)\nhas a tendency to prevent a multitude of sins, and a greater degree\ncondemnation, that would otherwise ensue. These may be called the\nremote, or secondary ends of Christ\u2019s death, which was principally and\nimmediately designed to redeem the elect, and to purchase all saving\nblessings for them, which shall be applied in his own time and way:\nNevertheless others, as a consequence hereof, are made partakers of some\nblessings of common providence, so far as they are subservient to the\nsalvation of those, for whom he gave himself a ransom.\n\n3. It is allowed on both sides, and especially by all that own the\ndivinity and satisfaction of Christ, that his death was sufficient to\nredeem the whole world, had God designed that it should be a price for\nthem, which is the result of the infinite value of it; therefore,\n\n4. The main question before us is, whether God designed the salvation of\nall mankind by the death of Christ, or whether he accepted it as a price\nof redemption for all, so that it might be said that he redeemed some\nwho shall not be saved by him? This is affirmed by many, who maintain\nuniversal redemption, which we must take leave to deny. And they farther\nadd, as an explication hereof, that Christ died that he might put all\nmen into a salvable state, or procure a possibility of salvation for\nthem; so that many might obtain it, by a right improvement of his death,\nwho shall fall short of it; and also that it is in their power to\nfrustrate the ends thereof, and so render it ineffectual. This we judge\nnot only to be an error, but such as is highly derogatory to the glory\nof God; which we shall endeavour to make appear, and to establish the\ncontrary doctrine, namely, that Christ died to purchase salvation for\nnone but those who shall obtain it. This may be proved,\n\nI. From those distinguishing characters that accompany salvation, which\nare given to those for whom he died.\n\n1. They are called his _sheep_, in John x. 11. _I am the good Shepherd,\nthe good Shepherd giveth his life for the sheep_. This metaphor must\ncertainly imply, that they, for whom Christ died, are distinguished from\nthe world, as the objects of his immediate care, and special gracious\nprovidence: But, besides this, there are several things in the context,\nwhich contain a farther description of these _sheep_, for whom he laid\ndown his life, which cannot be applied to the whole world: Thus it is\nsaid, in ver. 14. _I know my sheep, and am known of them_, that is, with\na knowledge of affection, as the word _knowledge_ is often used in\nscripture, when applied to Christ, or his people. Again, these sheep are\nfarther described, as those who shall certainly obtain salvation; as our\nSaviour says concerning them, in ver. 27, 28. _My sheep hear my voice,\nand I know them, and they follow me; and I give unto them eternal life,\nand they shall never perish; neither shall any pluck them out of my\nhand_: but this privilege, without doubt, belongs not to the whole\nworld.\n\nThey are also considered as believers, inasmuch as faith is the\nnecessary consequence of Christ\u2019s redemption, and accordingly are\ndistinguished from the world, or that part thereof, which is left in\nunbelief and impenitency: Thus Christ says, concerning those who\nrejected his Person and gospel, in ver. 26. _Ye believe not, because ye\nare not of my sheep_.\n\n2. They for whom Christ died are called his _friends_, and, as such, the\nobjects of his highest love, in John xv. 13. _Greater love hath no man\nthan this, that a man lay down his life for his friends_, and they are\nfarther described, in the following words, as expressing their love to\nhim, by _doing whatsoever he commandeth them_; and, he calls them\nfriends, so they are distinguished from servants, or slaves, who, though\nthey may be made partakers of common favours, yet he imparts not his\nsecrets to them; but, with respect to these, he says, in ver. 15, 16.\n_All things that I have heard of my Father, I have made known unto you_;\nAnd they are farther distinguished from the world, inasmuch as they are\n_chosen by Christ, and ordained that they should go and bring forth\nfruit_; and there are several other privileges which accompany\nsalvation, that are said to belong to these friends of Christ, for whom\nhe died.\n\n_Object._ It is objected, that what Christ here says, concerning his\nfriends, is particularly directed to his disciples, with whom at that\ntime he conversed and these he considers as persons who had made a right\nimprovement of his redeeming love; and therefore, that redemption which\nthe whole world might be made partakers of, if they would, these were\nlike to reap the happy fruits and effects of.\n\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that whatever promises, or\nprivileges, Christ\u2019s disciples were made partakers of, if these do not\nimmediately respect their character as ministers, but as Christians,\nthey are equally to be applied to all believers. Now, that what Christ\nsays to them, whom he calls his friends, is applicable to all believers,\nappears from their being described as _abiding in him_, and _bringing\nforth much fruit_, under the powerful influence of his grace, _without\nwhom they can do nothing_; and, when he speaks, in ver. 19, 26. of the\n_world\u2019s hating them, because they are not of the world_, and of _the\nComforter\u2019s being sent to testify of him_, in order to the confirmation\nof their faith, this belongs to all believers, as such; therefore they\nare as much described as Christ\u2019s friends, for whom he laid down his\nlife, as his disciples, to whom he more immediately directed his\ndiscourse.\n\nAnd as for the other part of the objection, namely, that these had made\na right improvement of Christ\u2019s redemption: the reply that may be given\nto it, is, that none but Christ\u2019s friends can be said to have made a\nright improvement of redemption, and therefore none but such have any\nground to conclude that Christ died for them: but this is not the temper\nand character of the greater part of mankind, therefore Christ did not\ndie for the whole world: and it is very evident, from this character\nwhich Christ gives of them, for whom he died, that either they are, or\nshall be, of enemies, made friends to him.\n\n3. They are called, _The Children of God that were scattered abroad_,\nwho should be _gathered together in one_, as the consequence of his\ndeath, in John xi. 52. This gathering together in one, seems to import\nthe same thing, with what the apostle speaks of, as a display of the\ngrace of the gospel, and calls it, their _being gathered together in\nChrist_ their Head, in Eph. i. 10. and one part of them he considers, as\nbeing already _in heaven_, and the other part of them _on earth_, in\ntheir way to it; and he speaks such things concerning them, in the\nforegoing and following verses, as cannot be said of any but those that\nshall be saved. Now, if Christ designed, by his death, to purchase this\nspecial privilege for his children, certainly it cannot be supposed that\nhe died for the whole world; and elsewhere the apostle speaking, in Heb.\nii. 10. concerning _the Captain of our salvation\u2019s being made perfect\nthrough sufferings_ considers this as a means for _bringing many sons to\nglory_, which is a peculiar privilege belonging to the heirs of\nsalvation, and not to the whole world.\n\n_Object. 1._ It will be objected to this, that nothing can be proved\nfrom the words of so vile a person as Caiaphas, who relates this matter;\nand therefore, though it be contained in scripture, it does not prove\nthe truth of the doctrine, which is pretended to be established thereby.\n\n_Answ._ Though Caiaphas was one of the vilest men on earth, and he\neither did not believe this prophecy himself, or, if he did, he made a\nvery bad use of it, yet this does not invalidate the prediction: for\nthough wicked men may occasionally have some prophetic intimation\nconcerning future events, as Balaam had, the instrument, which the\nSpirit of God makes use of in discovering them to mankind, does not\nrender them less certain, for the worst of men may be employed to impart\nthe greatest truths: therefore it is sufficient to our purpose, that it\nis said, in the words immediately foregoing, that _being high priest\nthat year, he prophesied_, as it was no uncommon thing for the high\npriest to have prophetic intimations from God, to deliver to his people,\nwhatever his personal character might be; so that we must consider this\nas a divine oracle, and therefore infallibly true.\n\n_Object. 2._ If it be allowed, that what is here predicted was true, yet\nthe subject-matter thereof respects the nation of the Jews, concerning\nwhom it cannot be said, that every individual was in a state of\nsalvation, and therefore it rather militates against, than proves the\ndoctrine of particular redemption.\n\n_Answ._ It is evident, that when it is said that _Christ should die for\nthat nation_, the meaning is, the children of God in that nation; for\nthe children of God, that dwelt there, are opposed to his children that\nwere scattered abroad; and so the meaning is, Christ died that they\nshould not perish, who have the temper, and disposition of his children,\nwherever the place of their residence be.\n\n4. They for whom Christ died are called his _church_, whereof he is _the\nHead_; and _the Body_, of whom _he is the Saviour_, in Eph. v. 23. and\nthese he is said _to have loved, and given himself for_, in ver. 25. Now\nthe church is distinguished from the world, as it is gathered out of it;\nand the word _church_, in this place, is taken in a very different\nsense, from that in which it is understood in many other scriptures. The\napostle does not mean barely a number of professing people, of which\nsome are sincere, and others may be hypocrites, or of which some shall\nbe saved, and others not; nor does he speak of those who are apparently\nin the way of salvation, as making a visible profession of the Christian\nreligion: But it is taken for that church, which is elsewhere called\n_the spouse of Christ_, and is united to him by faith, and that shall,\nin the end, be eternally saved by him; this is very evident, for he\nspeaks of them, as _sanctified and cleansed with the washing of water by\nthe word_, in ver. 26. And, as to what concerns their future state, they\nare such as shall be _presented to himself a glorious church, not having\nspot or wrinkle, or any such thing_, in ver. 27. Now, since it was for\nthese that Christ died, it cannot be reasonably concluded that he died\nequally and alike for all mankind.\n\nAnd to this we may add, that they are called _his people_, whom he\ndesigned _to save from their sins_, in Matt. i. 21. and also _a peculiar\npeople_, who are described by this character, by which they are known,\nas being _zealous of good works_, in Tit. ii. 14. and, by his death,\nthey are said not only to be redeemed, so as to be put into the\npossession of the external privileges of the gospel, but _redeemed from\nall iniquity_, and purified unto himself; all which expressions\ncertainly denote those distinguishing blessings which Christ, by his\ndeath, designed to purchase for those who are the objects thereof.\n\nII. That Christ did not die equally, and alike for all mankind, appears\nfrom his death\u2019s being an instance of the highest love, and they, who\nare concerned herein, are in a peculiar manner, obliged to bless him for\nit as such. Thus the apostle joins both these together, when he says in\nGal. ii. 20. _He loved me, and gave himself for me_; and elsewhere it is\nsaid, in Rev. i. 5. _He loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own\nblood_; and herein it _is_ said, that _God commendeth his love towards\nus_, in Rom. v. 8. as that which is without a parallel. And besides,\nwhen he speaks of this love of Christ expressed herein, he seems to\ndistinguish it from that common love which is extended to all, when he\nsays, Christ died _for us_; and, that we may understand what he means\nthereby, we must consider to whom it was that this epistle was directed,\nnamely, to such as were _beloved of God, called to be saints_, in chap.\ni. 7. They are also described as such, who _were justified by Christ\u2019s\nblood_, and _who should be saved from wrath through him; reconciled to\nGod by the death of his Son, and who should be saved by his life_; and,\nas such, who _joyed in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, and by him had\nreceived the atonement_, in chap. 9-11. therefore surely they, who were\nthus beloved by Christ, to whom he expressed his love by dying for them,\nmust be distinguished from the world. And our Saviour speaks of this, as\nfar exceeding all that love, which is in the breasts of men, to one\nanother, in John xv. 18. _Greater love hath no man than this, that a man\nshould lay down his life for his friends._ Therefore we have no reason\nto suppose that he died equally and alike for all, for then there would\nbe an equal instance of love herein to the best and worst of men; Judas\nwould have been as much beloved as Peter; the Scribes and Pharisees,\nChrist\u2019s avowed enemies and persecutors, as much beloved as his\ndisciples and faithful followers, if there be nothing discriminating in\nhis dying love. Therefore we must conclude that he died to procure some\ndistinguishing blessings for a part of mankind, which all are not\npartakers of.\n\nAnd, as this love is so great and discriminating, it is the\nsubject-matter of the eternal praise of glorified saints: The _new song_\nthat is sung to him, in Rev. v. 9. contains in it a celebrating of his\nglory, as having _redeemed them to God by his blood, out of every\nkindred, and tongue, and people, and nation_, who were admitted into his\nimmediate presence, as the objects of his distinguishing love. And\ncertainly all this implies more than his purchasing the\ngospel-dispensation, or the discovery of the way of salvation to\nmankind, of whom the greatest part neglect, despise, and reap no saving\nadvantage thereby.\n\nIII. There are some circumstances attending the death of Christ, which\nargue, that it was not designed for all the world: particularly, he died\nas a Surety, or as one who undertook to pay that debt, which the justice\nof God might have exacted of men in their own persons. This has already\nbeen proved; and that which may be inferred from hence, is, that if\nChrist, by dying, paid this debt, and when he rose from the dead,\nreceiving a discharge from the hand of justice, then God will not exact\nthe debt twice, so as to bring them under the condemning sentence of the\nlaw, whom Christ, by his death, has delivered from it: this is certainly\na privilege that does not belong to the whole world, but to the\nsanctified.\n\nMoreover, some are not justified or discharged for the sake of a ransom\npaid, and never shall be; therefore it may be concluded, that it was not\ngiven for them.\n\nIV. It farther appears, that Christ did not die equally and alike for\nall men, in that he designed to purchase that dominion over, or\npropriety in them, for whom he died, which would be the necessary result\nhereof. As they are his trust and charge, given into his hand, to be\nredeemed by his blood; (and, in that respect, he undertook to satisfy\nthe justice of God for them, which he has done hereby) so, as the result\nhereof, he acquired a right to them, as Mediator, by redemption;\npursuant to the eternal covenant between the Father and him, he obtained\na right to bestow eternal life on all that were given to, and purchased\nby him. This tends to set forth the Father\u2019s glory, as he designed\nhereby to recover and bring back fallen creatures to himself; and it\nredounds to Christ\u2019s glory, as Mediator; as herein he not only discovers\nthe infinite value of his obedience and sufferings, but all his redeemed\nones are rendered the monuments of his love and grace, and shall for\never be employed in celebrating his praise: But certainly this is\ninconsistent with his death\u2019s being ineffectual to answer this end, and\nconsequently he died for none but those whom he will bring to glory,\nwhich he could not be said to have done, had he laid down his life for\nthe whole world.\n\nV. That Christ did not die, or pay a price of redemption for all the\nworld, farther appears, in that, salvation, whether begun, carried on,\nor perfected, is represented, in scripture, as the application thereof;\nand all those graces, which are wrought by the Spirit in believers, are\nthe necessary result and consequence thereof. This will appear, if we\nconsider, that when Christ speaks of his _Spirit_, as _sent to convince\nof sin, righteousness, and judgment, and to guide_ his people _into all\ntruth_ he says, _He shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine, and\nshall shew it unto you_, John xvi. 14. the meaning of which is, that he\nshould apply what he had purchased, whereby his glory, as our Redeemer,\nwould be eminently illustrated; and elsewhere, when the apostle speaks\nof the Spirit\u2019s work of regeneration and sanctification, he considers it\nas the result of Christ\u2019s death, and accordingly it is said to be _shed\non us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour_, Tit. iii. 6. And\nwhen we read of his _redeeming them that were under the law_, their\nreceiving the _adoption of sons_, Gal. iv. 5. and all the privileges\ncontained in it, these are considered as the necessary consequences\nthereof; and Christ\u2019s being _not spared_, but _delivered up_ unto death\nfor those who are described as chosen, called, justified, and such as\nshall be hereafter glorified, is assigned, as a convincing evidence,\nthat _God will with him freely give them all things_, Rom. viii. 32. Now\nthis cannot, with the least shadow of reason, be applied to the whole\nworld; therefore Christ did not die for, or redeem, all mankind.\n\nThat the application of redemption may farther appear to be of equal\nextent with the purchase thereof, we shall endeavour to prove, that all\nthose graces, which believers are made partakers of here, as well as\ncomplete salvation, which is the consummation thereof hereafter, are the\npurchase of Christ\u2019s death. And herein we principally oppose those who\ndefend the doctrine of universal redemption, in that open and\nself-consistent way, which the Pelagians generally take, who suppose,\nthat faith and repentance, and all other graces, are entirely in our own\npower; otherwise the conditionality of the gospel-covenant, as they\nrightly observe, could never be defended, and they, for whom Christ\ndied, namely, all mankind, must necessarily repent and believe. Thus a\nlate writer[170] argues, in consistency with his own scheme; whereas\nsome others, who maintain the doctrine of universal redemption, and, at\nthe same time, that of efficacious grace, pluck down with one hand, what\nthey build up with the other. It is the former of these that we are now\nprincipally to consider, when we speak of the graces of the Spirit, as\nwhat are purchased by Christ\u2019s blood; and, that this may appear, let it\nbe observed,\n\n1. That complete salvation is styled, _The purchased possession_, Eph.\ni. 14. and our _deliverance from the wrath to come_, is not only\ninseparably connected with, but contained in it, and both these are\nconsidered as purchased by the death of Christ, 1 Thess. i. 10. Rom. v.\n9, 10. and the apostle elsewhere, speaking concerning the church, as\narrived to its state of perfection in heaven, and its being _without\nspot or wrinkle or any such thing_, and _without blemish_, that is, when\nits sanctification is brought to perfection, considers this, as the\naccomplishment of that great end of Christ\u2019s _giving himself for it_, or\nlaying down his life to purchase it, Eph. v. 25, 27.\n\n2. It follows, from hence, that all that grace, whereby believers are\nmade meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light,\nwhich is the beginning of this salvation, is the purchase of Christ\u2019s\nblood. Accordingly God is said to have _blessed us with all spiritual\nblessings in heavenly places_, (or, as it may be better rendered, in\nwhat _concerns heavenly things_) _in Christ_, Eph. i. 3. that is, for\nthe sake of Christ\u2019s death, which was the purchase thereof; therefore it\nfollows, that faith and repentance, and all other graces, which are\nwrought in us in this world, are purchased thereby: Thus it is said,\n_Unto you it is given in behalf of Christ to believe_, as well as to\nexercise those graces, which are necessary in those who are called _to\nsuffer for his sake_, Phil. i. 29. and elsewhere God is said to have\n_exalted Christ to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance_, as\nwell as _forgiveness of sins_, Acts v. 31. And, since his exaltation\nincludes in it his resurrection from the dead, it plainly argues, that\nhe died to give repentance, and consequently that this grace was\npurchased by him; and when our Saviour speaks of _sending_ the Spirit,\n_the Comforter to convince the world of sin, of righteousness, and of\njudgment_, which comprizes in it that internal work of grace that is\nwrought by him, he considers this as the consequence of his leaving the\nworld, after he had finished the work of redemption by his death, and so\npurchased this privilege for them, John xvi. 7, 8.\n\nVI. That Christ did not die for all mankind, appears from his not\ninterceding for them, as he saith, _I pray not for the world, but for\nthem which thou hast given me, for they are thine_; and not for his\ndisciples alone, _but for them also which should believe on him through\ntheir word_, John xvii. 9, 20. This farther appears from a believer\u2019s\nfreedom from condemnation being founded on Christ\u2019s _intercession_, as\nwell as his _death_ and _resurrection_, Rom. viii. 34. and his being, at\nthe same time, styled an _Advocate with the Father_, and _a propitiation\nfor our sins_, 1 John ii. 1, 2.\n\nAnd this may be farther argued from the nature of Christ\u2019s intercession,\nwhich (as will be considered in its proper place[171]) is his presenting\nhimself, in the merit of his death, in the behalf of those for whom he\nsuffered; as also from his being _always heard_ in that which he pleads\nfor, John xi. 42. which argues that they shall be saved, otherwise it\ncould not be supposed that he intercedes for their salvation: but this\nhe cannot be said to do for all mankind, as appears by the event, in\nthat all shall not be saved.\n\n_Object._ To this it is objected that Christ prayed for his enemies, as\nit was foretold concerning him, by the prophet, who saith, _He made\nintercession for the transgressors_, Isa. liii. 12. and this was\naccomplished at his crucifixion, when he saith, _Father, forgive them,\nfor they know not what they do_, Luke xxiii. 34. That which Christ here\nprayed for, was forgiveness, which is a privilege connected with\nsalvation; and this he did in the behalf of the multitude that crucified\nhim: but it cannot reasonably be supposed, that all these were saved:\ntherefore if Christ\u2019s death and intercession respects the same persons,\nand necessarily infers their salvation, then it would follow, that this\nrude and inhuman multitude were all saved, which they, who deny\nuniversal redemption do not suppose.\n\n_Answ._ Some, in answer to this objection, suppose, that there is a\nfoundation for a distinction between those supplications, which Christ,\nin his human nature, put up to God, as being bound, by the moral law, in\ncommon with all mankind, to pray for his enemies; and his Mediatorial\nprayer or intercession. In the former of these respects, he prayed for\nthem; which prayer, though it argued the greatness of his affection for\nthem, yet it did not necessarily infer their salvation; in like manner,\nas Stephen, when dying, is represented as praying for those who stoned\nhim, when he saith, _Lord, lay not this sin to their charge_, Acts vii.\n80. or, as our Saviour prays for himself in the garden, _O, my Father,\nif it be possible, let this cup pass from me_, Matt. xxvi. 39. whereby\nhe signifies the formidableness of the death he was to undergo, and that\nhis human nature could not but dread such a degree of suffering: this\nthey suppose to be different from his Mediatorial intercession for his\npeople, in which he represents the merit of his death, as what would\neffectually procure the blessings purchased thereby; in this latter\nsense, he could not be said to pray for any of those who crucified him,\nwho are excluded from salvation.\n\nBut, since this reply to the objection hath some difficulties attending\nit, which render it less satisfactory, especially because it supposes\nthat he was not heard in that which he prayed for, when he desired that\nGod would _forgive them_, I would rather chuse to take another method in\nanswering it; namely, that when Christ prays that God would _forgive\nthem_, he means that God would not immediately pour forth the vials of\nhis wrath upon that wicked generation, as their crime deserved, but that\nthey might still continue to be a people favoured with the means of\ngrace; this he prays for, and herein was answered; and his intercession\nfor them, though it had not an immediate respect to the salvation of all\nof them, had, notwithstanding, a subserviency to the gathering in of his\nelect amongst them, whose salvation was principally intended by this\nintercession, as it was for them that he shed his blood; and accordingly\nI apprehend, that this desire that God would _forgive them_, implies the\nsame thing as Moses\u2019s request, in the behalf of Israel, did, when he\nsaith, _Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people, as thou\nhast forgiven this people from Egypt, until now_, Numb. xiv. 19. where\nto pardon intends nothing else but God\u2019s not punishing them as their sin\ndeserved, in an immediate, and exemplary way and manner.\n\nVII. The doctrine of universal redemption hath some absurd consequences\nattending it, not consistent with the divine perfections; as,\n\n1. It would give occasion for Christ to be called the Saviour of those\nwho shall not be eventually saved by him, the Redeemer of many, who are\nheld in chains by the justice of God, and receive no saving benefit by\nhis redemption, or for him to be said to express the highest instance of\nlove, in dying for those who shall for ever be the objects of his\nhatred, which implies a contradiction; and what is this but to say, that\nhe delivers those from _the wrath to come_, 1 Thess. i. 10. who are, and\nshall be for ever, children of wrath? therefore we must either assert\nuniversal salvation, or deny universal redemption.\n\n2. It will also follow from hence, that he satisfied the justice of God\nfor all the sins of all men; for to lay down a price of redemption, is\nto discharge the whole debt, otherwise it would be to no purpose. Now,\nif he satisfied for all the sins of every man, he did this that no sin\nshould be their ruin, and consequently he died to take away the guilt of\nfinal impenitency in those who shall perish; and therefore they have, by\nvirtue hereof, a right to salvation, which they shall not obtain: it\nfollows then, that since he did not die for all the sins of all men, he\ndid not, by his death, redeem all men.\n\n3. If Christ died for all men, he intended hereby their salvation, or\nthat they should live: but it is certain he did not intend the salvation\nof all men; for then his design must be frustrated with respect to a\npart of them, for whom he died, which contains a reflection on his\nwisdom, as not adapting the means to the end. Moreover, this supposes\nthat Christ\u2019s attaining the end he designed by his death, depends on the\nwill of man, and consequently it subjects him to disappointment, and\nrenders God\u2019s eternal purpose dependent on man\u2019s conduct.\n\n4. Since God designed, by the death of Christ, to bring to himself a\nrevenue of glory, in proportion to the infinite value thereof, and\nChrist, our great Mediator, was, as the prophet saith, to have _a\nportion with the great_, and to _divide the spoil with the strong_, as\nthe consequence of his _pouring out his soul unto death_, Isa. liii. 12.\nit follows from thence, that if all are not saved, for whom Christ died,\nthen the Father and the Son would lose that glory which they designed to\nattain hereby, as the work would be left incomplete; and a great part of\nmankind cannot take occasion from Christ\u2019s redeeming them, to adore and\nmagnify that grace, which is displayed therein, since it is not\neventually conducive to their salvation.\n\nHaving endeavoured to prove the doctrine of particular redemption; we\nshall now consider the arguments generally brought by those who defend\nthe contrary scheme, who suppose, that God designed, as the consequence\nof Christ\u2019s death, to save all mankind, upon condition of their\nrepenting and believing, according to the tenor of the gospel-covenant,\nwhich is substituted in the room of that which was violated by man\u2019s\napostacy from God, whereby sincere obedience comes in the room of that\nperfect obedience, which was the condition of the first covenant. This\nthey call man\u2019s being brought into a salvable state by Christ\u2019s death;\nso that Christ rendered salvation possible; whereas faith, repentance,\nand sincere obedience, render it certain. And, so far as this concerns\nthe design of God, in sending Christ to redeem the world, they suppose\nthat God determined hereby to put man into such a state, that all may be\nsaved, if they will.\n\nAnd, as to what concerns the event, to wit, man\u2019s complying with the\ncondition, they that defend universal redemption are divided in their\nsentiments about it; some supposing that Christ purchased faith and\nrepentance for a certain number of mankind, namely, those who shall\nrepent and believe, and pursuant thereunto, will work those graces in\nthem; whereas others, who had not these graces purchased for them, shall\nperish, though Christ has redeemed them. These suppose, that redemption\nis both universal and particular, in different respects; _universal_, in\nthat all who sit under the sound of the gospel, have a conditional grant\nof grace contained therein, whereby they are put into a salvable state,\nor possibility of attaining salvation; and _particular_, with respect to\nthose who shall repent and believe, and so attain salvation; in which\nsense they apply that scripture, in which God is said to be _the Saviour\nof all men, especially of those that believe_, 1 Tim. iv. 10. This some\ncall a middle way, between the Pelagian and Calvinistic methods of\nreasoning about this subject; but it appears to be inconsistent with\nitself, inasmuch as they, who give into this hypothesis, are forced\nsometimes to decline what they have been contending for on one side,\nwhen pressed with some arguments brought in defence of the other;\ntherefore we shall pass this over, and consider the self-consistent\nscheme, in which universal redemption is maintained,\n\nThe sum of all their arguments, who defend it in the Pelagian way,\namounts to this, _viz._ that Christ died not to purchase salvation\nabsolutely for any, but to make way for God\u2019s entering into a new or\ngospel covenant with men, in which salvation is promised, on condition\nof faith, repentance, and sincere obedience, which they suppose to be in\nthe power of those who have the gospel. And, that the heathen may not be\nexcluded, though it cannot be styled a gospel-covenant to them, there\nare abatements made, as to what concerns faith, founded on divine\nrevelation, and the only condition that entitles them to salvation is\ntheir yielding sincere obedience to the law of nature, in proportion to\ntheir light.\n\nThey farther add, that this gospel-covenant must be conditional,\notherwise it could not be called a _covenant_, as wanting an essential\ningredient contained in every covenant; and these conditions must be in\nour own power, otherwise the overture of salvation, depending on the\nperformance thereof, would be illusory; and it could not be called a\ncovenant of grace, inasmuch as there can be no grace, or favour, in\npromising a blessing upon impossible conditions; neither could this\ngospel-covenant be styled a better covenant than that which God entered\ninto with our first parents, in which the conditions were in their own\npower; nor could it be an expedient to repair the ruins of the fall, or\nbring man, in any sense, into a salvable state. So that, according to\nthis representation of the doctrine of particular redemption, there are\nnot only many absurd consequences attending it, which detract from the\nglory of the gospel, but it is contrary to the holiness, wisdom,\njustice, and goodness of God, and so derogates as much from the divine\nperfections, as any thing that is argued in defence of universal\nredemption can be pretended to do. And, to sum up the whole argument,\nthere is an appeal to scripture, as that which gives countenance to it\nin a multitude of instances. This is the substance of all that is said\nin defence of this doctrine; and, in opposition to it, We shall take\nleave to observe,\n\n(1.) That it is taken for granted, but not sufficiently proved, that\nChrist died to purchase the covenant of grace; whereas, if the\ndifference between the covenant of redemption, and the covenant of\ngrace, be only circumstantial, as has been before observed,[172] then\nthe death of Christ is included among the conditions of this covenant;\nand if so, the covenant itself could not be the purchase thereof: but,\nif by Christ\u2019s purchasing the covenant of grace, they only meant his\npurchasing the graces given in the covenant, we are far from denying it,\nthough they generally do. That therefore which we are principally to\noppose, is their sense of the conditionality of the covenant of grace,\nand its being essential to a covenant to be conditional, namely, to\ndepend on uncertain conditions, in our power to perform, it being as\nthey suppose, left to the freedom of our own will to comply with or\nreject them, and thereby to establish or disannul this covenant: but\nhaving elsewhere proved that the word _covenant_ is often used in\nscripture, without the idea of a condition annexed to it,[173] and also\nconsidered in what respects those ideas, contained in a conditional\ncovenant between man and man, are to be excluded, when we speak of a\ncovenant between God and man;[174] and having also, in maintaining the\ndoctrine of election, endeavoured to defend the absoluteness of God\u2019s\nwill, and shewed in what sense we are to understand those scriptures\nthat are laid down in a conditional form,[175] which may, with a little\nvariation, be applied to our present argument; we shall, to avoid the\nrepetition of things before insisted on, add nothing farther in answer\nto this part of the argument, we are now considering, but only that it\nimplies God to be, in many respects, like ourselves, and supposes that\nit is in our power to frustrate, and render the death of Christ, which\nwas the highest display of divine grace, ineffectual, and so prevent his\nhaving that glory, which he designed to bring to his own name thereby.\n\n(2.) As to what is farther argued, concerning the covenant of grace\nbeing a better covenant than that which God made with man in innocency,\nand therefore that the conditions thereof must be in our own power,\notherwise God, by insisting on the performance of what is impossible,\nsubverts the design of the gospel, and the covenant hereupon ceases to\nbe a covenant of grace; it may be replied that though we freely own that\nthe covenant of grace is, in many respects, better than that which God\nentered into with man in innocency, and that it would not be so were it\nimpossible for those, who are concerned therein, to attain the blessings\npromised to the heirs of salvation; yet we cannot allow that it must\nnecessarily be conditional, in the sense in which some understand the\nword, much less that the conditions thereof are in our own power, or\nelse the design of the gospel must be concluded to be subverted.\n\nTherefore we may take leave to observe, that when God is said to require\nfaith, and all other graces in this covenant-dispensation, and has\nconnected them with salvation, this does not overthrow the grace of the\ncovenant, but rather establish it; for grace and salvation are not only\npurchased for, but promised and secured to all who are redeemed, by the\nfaithfulness of God, and the intercession of Christ and shall certainly\nbe applied to them; and whereas, the graces of the Spirit are not in our\nown power, this is so far from overthrowing the design of the gospel,\nthat it tends to advance the glory thereof, as God hereby takes occasion\nto set forth the exceeding riches of his grace, in making his people\nmeet for, and bringing them, at last, to glory. And, though it be not\npossible for all to attain salvation, this should he no discouragement\nto any one to attend on those means of grace, under which we are to hope\nfor the saving effects of Christ\u2019s death, whereby we may conclude that\neternal life is purchased for us, and we shall at last be brought to it.\n\n(3.) As to what is farther alleged, concerning the covenant of grace, as\ndesigned to repair the ruins of the fall, or God\u2019s intending hereby to\nbring man into a salvable state; we are never told, in scripture, that\nwhat was lost by our first apostasy from God, is to be compensated by\nthe extent of grace and salvation to all mankind; and it is not the\ndesign of the gospel to discover this to the world, but that the\nexceeding riches of divine grace should be _made known to the vessels of\nmercy, before prepared unto glory_, Rom. ix. 23. This is, as some\nexpress it, the plank that remains after the ship-wreck,[176] or the\ngreat foundation of our hope, and possibility of escaping everlasting\ndestruction; and it is a much better ground of security, than to lay the\nwhole stress of our salvation on the best improvements of corrupt\nnature, or those endeavours which we are to use, to improve the liberty\nof our will, in order to our escaping ruin, without dependance on the\ndivine assistance; which is the method that they take to attain\nsalvation, who thus defend the doctrine of universal redemption.\n\n(4.) As for our being brought into a salvable state by the death of\nChrist; the gospel no where gives all mankind ground to expect\nsalvation, but only those who have the marks and characters of Christ\u2019s\nredeemed ones; and these are not brought by his death unto a mere\npossibility of attaining it, but the scripture represents them as having\nthe _earnest, or first fruits_ thereof, and speaks of _Christ in them_,\nas _the hope of glory_, Eph. i. 14. Rom. viii. 23. They are also said to\nbe _reconciled to God by the death of his Son_, chap. v. 10. which is\nmore than their having a bare possibility of salvation, as the result\nand consequence thereof.\n\n(5.) That which is next to be considered, is, what concerns the doctrine\nof particular redemption, as being derogatory to the divine perfections,\ntogether with many absurd consequences, which are supposed to attend it.\nIt is very common, in all methods of reasoning, and particularly in\ndefending or opposing the doctrine of universal redemption, for persons\nto endeavour to make it appear, that the contrary scheme of doctrine is\nchargeable with absurdities; and, as we have taken the same method in\nopposing universal redemption, it may reasonably be expected, that the\ndoctrine of particular redemption should have many absurd consequences\ncharged upon it; to which we shall endeavour to reply, that thereby it\nmay be discerned whether the charge be just or no. And,\n\n1. The doctrine of particular redemption is supposed to be inconsistent\nwith the goodness of God, as it renders salvation impossible to the\ngreatest part of mankind, and their state irretrievable by any means\nthat can be used, and so has a tendency to lead them to despair. But to\nthis it may be replied,\n\n_1st_, That it must be owned, that they, for whom Christ did not die,\ncannot be saved; and therefore, had God described any persons by name,\nor given some visible character, by which it might be certainly\nconcluded that they were not redeemed, it would follow from thence, that\ntheir state would be desperate. But this is not his usual method of\ndealing with mankind: he might, indeed, have done it, and then such\nwould have been thereby excluded from, and not encouraged to attend on\nthe means of grace; but he has, in wisdom and sovereignty, concealed the\nevent of things, with respect hereunto, from the world; and therefore\nthere is a vast difference between men\u2019s concluding that a part of the\nworld are excluded from this privilege; and that they themselves are\nincluded in that number: the latter of which we have no warrant to say,\nconcerning ourselves, or any others, especially so long as we are under\nthe means of grace. There is, indeed, one character of persons in the\ngospel, which gives ground to conclude that Christ did not die for them,\nand that is what respects those who had committed the unpardonable sin.\nI shall not, at present, enter into the dispute, whether that sin can\nnow be committed or no, since we may be occasionally led to insist on\nthat subject under another head; but there seems to be sufficient ground\nto determine, either that this cannot be certainly known, since the\nextraordinary gift of discerning of spirits is now ceased; or, at least,\nthat this cannot be applied to any who attend on the means of grace with\na desire of receiving spiritual advantage thereby.\n\n_2dly_, If Christ\u2019s not dying for the whole world be a means to lead men\nto despair, as salvation is hereby rendered impossible, this consequence\nmay, with equal evidence, be deduced from the supposition, that all\nmankind shall not be saved, which they, who defend universal redemption,\npretend not to deny: but will any one say, that this supposition leads\nmen to despair? or ought it to be reckoned a reflection on the divine\ngoodness, that so many are left to perish in their fallen state, by the\njudicial hand of God, which might have applied salvation unto all, as\nwell as purchased it for all mankind?\n\n2. The doctrine of particular redemption is farther supposed to be\ninconsistent with the preaching the gospel, which is generally styled a\ndoor of hope; and then the dispensation we are under cannot be called a\nday of grace; which renders all the overtures of salvation made to\nsinners illusory, and contains in it a reflection, not only on the grace\nof God, but his holiness.\n\nIn order to our replying to this, something must be premised to explain\nwhat we mean by a day of grace, and the hope of the gospel, which\naccompanies it. And here, let it be considered,\n\n(1.) That we hereby intend such a dispensation in which sinners are\ncalled to repent and believe, and so obtain salvation; not that we are\nto suppose that it is to be attained by their own power, without the\nspecial influences of the Holy Ghost, for this would be to ascribe that\nto man, which is peculiar to God; nor that God would give his special\ngrace to all that sit under the sound of the gospel; for this is\ncontrary to common observation and experience, since many make a\nprofession of religion who are destitute of saving grace.\n\nAs for the hope of the gospel, or that door of hope that is opened\ntherein to sinners, we cannot understand any thing else thereby, but\nthat all, without distinction, are commanded and encouraged to wait on\nGod in his instituted means of grace, and the event hereof must be left\nto him who gives and withholds success to them, as he pleases. All have\nthis encouragement, that, peradventure they may obtain grace, under the\nmeans of grace; and this is not inconsistent with their being styled a\ndoor of hope, and God is not obliged to grant sinners a greater degree\nof hope than this, to encourage them to wait on him in his ordinances,\nnotwithstanding there is a farther motive inducing us hereunto, namely,\nthat this is his ordinary way, in which he works grace; or, if God is\npleased to give us desires after the efficacy of his grace, or any\ndegree of conviction of sin and misery; this is still a farther ground\nof hope, though it fall short of that grace of hope that accompanies\nsalvation.\n\n(2.) As to what concerns the preaching of the gospel, and the overtures\nof salvation to all therein, which, upon the supposition of Christ\u2019s not\ndying for all men, they conclude to be illusory, and repugnant to the\nholiness of God. To this it may be replied, that we do not deny that in\npreaching the gospel, Christ is offered to the chief of sinners, or that\nthe proclamation of grace is made public to all, without distinction:\nbut this will not overthrow the doctrine of particular redemption, if we\nrightly consider what is done, in offering Christ to sinners; which,\nthat it may be understood, let it be observed,\n\n_1st_, That God has given us no warrant to enter into his secret\ndeterminations, respecting the event of things, so as to give any\npersons ground to conclude that they are redeemed, and have a warrant to\napply to themselves the promise of salvation, or any blessings that\naccompany it, while in an unconverted state. Ministers are not to\naddress their discourses to a mixed multitude of professing Christians,\nin such a way, as though they knew that they were all effectually\ncalled, and chosen of God. Our Saviour compares them to _the faithful\nand wise steward_, whose business it is _to give every one their portion\nof meat in due season_, Luke xii. 42. and therefore they are,\nconsistently with what is contained in scripture, to tell them, that\nsalvation is purchased for a part of mankind, and they know not but that\nthey may be of that number, which will be an evidence to them that they\nare so.\n\n_2dly_, When Christ is said to be offered to sinners, in the preaching\nof the gospel, that, which is intended thereby, is his being set forth\ntherein as a most desirable object, altogether lovely, worthy to be\nembraced, and submitted to; and not only so, but that he will certainly\nsave all whom he effectually calls, inasmuch as he has purchased\nsalvation for them.\n\n_3dly_, It includes in it an informing sinners, that it is their\nindispensible duty and interest to believe in Christ, and in order\nthereto, that they are commanded and encouraged to wait on him for that\ngrace, which can enable them thereunto: and, as a farther encouragement,\nto let them know that there is a certain connexion between grace and\nsalvation; so that none, who are enabled, by faith, to come to Christ,\nshall be cast out, or rejected by him. This is the preaching and hope of\nthe gospel; and, in this sense, the overtures of salvation are made\ntherein; which is not in the least inconsistent with the doctrine of\nparticular redemption.[177]\n\n_Object._ Though this be such a method of preaching the gospel, as is\nconsistent with the doctrine of special redemption; yet there is another\nway of preaching it, which is more agreeable to the express words of\nscripture, and founded on the doctrine of universal redemption; and\naccordingly sinners ought to be told, that the great God, in the most\naffectionate manner, expostulates with them, to persuade them to accept\nof life and salvation, when he represents himself, as _having no\npleasure in the death of the wicked_, and, with an earnestness of\nexpression says, _Turn ye, turn ye, from your evil ways; for why will ye\ndie, O house of Israel?_ Ezek. xxxiii. 11. Therefore the design of the\ngospel is, to let the world know that God\u2019s dealing with mankind, in\ngeneral, are full of goodness; he would not have any perish, and\ntherefore has sent his Son to redeem them all, and, as the consequence\nhereof, pleads with them to turn to him, that they may reap the benefits\npurchased thereby.\n\n_Answ._ Whatever be the sense of these expostulatory expressions, which\nwe frequently meet with in scripture, we must not suppose that they\ninfer, that the saving grace of repentance is in our own power; for that\nis not only contrary to the sense of many other scriptures, but to the\nexperience of every true penitent, whose language is like that of\nEphraim, _Turn thou me, and I shall be turned_, Jer. xxxi. 18. nor must\nwe conclude, that God designs to save those that shall not be saved; for\nthen he could not say, _My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my\npleasure_, Isa. xlvi. 10. If these ideas, as unworthy of God, be\nabstracted from the sense of such-like scriptures, we may understand\nthem, not only in a way that is consistent with the divine perfections,\nbut with the doctrine of particular redemption; which, that it may\nappear, let it be considered, that it is a very common thing, in\nscripture, for God to condescend to use human modes of speaking, and\nthose, in particular, by which various passions are set forth;\nnotwithstanding, we must not conclude that these passions are in God as\nthey are in men. Such expostulations as these, when used by us, signify,\nthat we earnestly desire the good of others, and are often warning them\nof their danger: but all is to no purpose, for they are obstinately set\non their own ruin, which we can by no means prevent; it being either out\nof our power to help them, or, if we could, it would not redound to our\nhonour to do it. This draws forth such-like expostulations from men; but\nthe weakness contained in them, is by no means to be applied to God: it\ncannot be said to be out of his power to give grace to impenitent\nsinners; nor, in case he has so determined, will it tend to his\ndishonour to bestow it. Now, that we may understand the sense of these\nscriptures, let it be considered,\n\n1. That _life_ and _death_, in scripture, are oftentimes used to signify\nthe external dispensations of providence, as to what concerns that good\nor evil, which God would bring on his people: thus it is said, _See, I\nhave set before thee this day, life and good, death and evil_, Deut.\nxxx. 15, 19, 20. where _life_ is explained in the following words, as\nsignifying their being _multiplied and blessed in the land, whither they\nwere to go to possess it_; and when God advises them in a following\nverse, _to choose life_, the consequence of this is, that _both they and\ntheir seed should live, that they might dwell in the land, which the\nLord sware to their fathers to give them_; and elsewhere, when God says,\nby the prophet Jeremiah, _I set before you the way of life, and the way\nof death_, Jer. xxi. 8. he explains it in the following words, as\ncontaining an expedient for their escaping temporal judgments, when he\nsays, _He that abideth in the city, shall die by the sword, and by the\nfamine, and by the pestilence; but he that goeth out, and falleth to the\nChaldeans, shall live_. And I cannot see any reason to conclude, but\nthat many other expressions, of the like nature, in which God promises\nlife, or threatens death to the house of Israel, by the prophets, who\noften warned them of their being carried into captivity, and dying in\ntheir enemies\u2019 land, have a more immediate respect thereunto; and that\nproverbial expression, which the Israelites are represented as making\nuse of, _The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the childrens\u2019 teeth\nare set on edge_, Ezek. xviii. 2. seems to intimate no more than this;\n_q. d._ that our fathers have sinned, and thereby deserved that the\nnation should be ruined by being carried captive, and we must suffer for\ntheir sins; in answer to which, God tells them, that this proverb should\nnot be used by them, but this evil should be brought on them for their\nown iniquities, or prevented by their reformation, namely, by forsaking\ntheir _idolatry_, _whoredom_, _violence_, _oppression_, and other\nabominations. And then he adds, ver. 12, 13, 17, 18. _the soul that\nsinneth, it shall die_, that is, if you continue to commit these vile\nenormities, you shall be followed with all those judgments which shall\ntend to your utter ruin; but _if the wicked will turn from all his sins\nwhich he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die_, ver.\n21. If this be the sense of these and such-like texts, then it was not\nwholly out of their own power thus to turn to God, how much soever that\nspecial grace, which accompanies salvation, be out of our power. It is\none thing to say, that man cannot work a principle of grace in himself,\nor to do that by his own power, which is the special gift and work of\nthe Spirit of God, and, as the consequence thereof, have ground to\nexpect eternal salvation; and another thing to say, that he cannot\nabstain from some gross enormities, as an expedient to prevent\ndesolating judgments. But if it will not be allowed that this is the\nsense of all those scriptures, that promise or threaten _life_ or\n_death_, which I do not pretend peremptorily to assert, let it be\nfarther added,\n\n2. That if spiritual and eternal blessings be included in the word\n_life_, and the contrary in _death_, in the scriptures but now referred\nto, we may account for the sense of them, without supposing that God\ndesigns what shall never come to pass, to wit, the universal salvation\nof mankind, though a part of them shall not be saved, by considering\ndesire, in him, as signifying the effects of desire in men.[178] Thus\nGod\u2019s not desiring a thing, denotes it not to be the object of desire;\naccordingly when he desires not the death of sinners, it implies, that\nthey ought to endeavour to avoid it, as the most formidable evil; and,\non the other hand, his taking pleasure in a thing, as he does in the\nsalvation of his people, signifies not only his intending to save them,\nbut the inexpressible happiness which they shall attain thereby; and,\nwhen he exhorts them, as an expedient to attain this privilege, _to\nturn_, this signifies the inseparable connexion between salvation and\nrepentance, or turning to God, which, though it be God\u2019s gift, it is,\nnotwithstanding, our act and indispensible duty. Therefore, if we take\nthis, and such-like scriptures, in either of these two senses, they are\nfar from giving countenance to the doctrine of universal redemption.\n\n3. There is another absurd consequence charged upon the doctrine of\nspecial redemption, namely, that it is inconsistent with our being\nexhorted and encouraged to _repent and believe for the remission of\nsins_, or _to the saving of the soul_, as scripture gives all men a\nwarrant to do, Acts ii. 38. and since all are commanded to exercise\nthese graces, and to expect salvation, as connected therewith, the\ndoctrine of particular redemption, as a late writer insinuates, puts us\nunder a necessity of believing a lie. And he farther adds, that if the\ncondition, annexed to the promise of salvation, be impossible, and known\nto be so, it gives no encouragement to set about it; and, if he who\npromises knows it to be so, he promises nothing, because nothing that a\nperson can obtain, or be the better for, whereby he is deluded, and a\ncheat put upon him, by pretending kindness, in making the promise, and\nintending no such thing.[179] Thus that author represents the doctrine\nof particular redemption, as containing the most blasphemous\nconsequences that words can express: he must therefore have been very\nsure that his argument was unanswerably just, though, I hope, we shall\nbe able to make it appear that it is far from being so; which, that we\nmay do, let it be considered,\n\n(1.) That we are to distinguish between a person\u2019s being bound to\nbelieve in Christ, and to believe that Christ died for him; the first\nact of faith does not contain in it a person\u2019s being persuaded that\nChrist died for him, but that he is the Object of faith, as he is\nrepresented to be in scripture; and accordingly it supposes that we are\nconvinced that Christ is the Messiah, that he purchased salvation for\nall who shall attain it, and is able to save, unto the utmost, all that\ncome unto God by him; and also, that it is our duty and interest so to\ndo. And, since saving faith is not in our own power, but the work and\ngift of divine grace, we are encouraged to wait on God in his\nordinances, and, with fervent prayer, to beseech him that he would work\nthis grace in us, acknowledging, that if he should deny us this\nblessing, there is no unrighteousness in him; and we are to continue\nwaiting on him, and using all those means which are in our power, though\nthey cannot attain their end, without his blessings; and, when he is\npleased to work this grace in us, we shall be enabled to put forth\nanother act of faith, which is properly saving, as intended by the\nscripture, which speaks of _believing to the saving of the soul_, which\nconsists in receiving of him, and resting on him for salvation, as\nhoping that he hath died for us, inasmuch as he hath given us that\ntemper and disposition of soul, which is contained in that character\nwhich is given of those for whom Christ died.\n\n(2.) We must farther distinguish between God\u2019s commanding all that sit\nunder the sound of the gospel to believe in Christ; and his giving them\nground to expect salvation, before they believe in him. Faith and\nrepentance may be asserted to be duties incumbent on all, and demanded\nof them, when, at the same time, it doth not follow that all are given\nto expect salvation, upon the bare declaration that they are so.\nAccordingly the command and encouragement is to be considered in this\norder; first, as it respects our obligation to believe; and then, as it\nrespects our hope of salvation; and neither the former nor the latter of\nthese does, in the least, infer that God intended to save all mankind,\nor gave them ground to expect salvation, who do not believe in Christ.\n\n(3.) As to what is farther suggested, concerning salvation\u2019s being\npromised on such conditions, as are known, both by God and man, to be\nimpossible, the only answer that need be given to this, is, that though\n_with men this is impossible, yet with God all things are possible_,\nMatt. xix. 26. When we consider faith and repentance, as conditions\nconnected with salvation, or as evincing our right to claim an interest\nin Christ, and that salvation, which is purchased by him, in which\nsense, as was before observed, we do not oppose their being called\nconditions thereof, by those who are tenacious of that mode of\nspeaking;[180] and we do not call them impossible conditions, any\notherwise than as they are so, without the powerful energy of the Holy\nSpirit; we cannot think that our asserting, that it is impossible that\nall mankind should thus repent and believe, is a doctrine contrary to\nscripture, which gives us ground to conclude, that all men shall not be\nsaved, and consequently that all shall not _believe to the saving of the\nsoul_. And, when we consider the impossibility thereof, we do not\nsuppose that God has given all mankind ground to expect this saving\nfaith, upon which the blasphemous suggestion, relating to his deluding\nmen, is founded; it is enough for us to say, that God has not told any\none, who attends on his ordinances, in hope of obtaining this grace,\nthat he will not give him faith; and more than this need not be desired\nby persons to induce them to perform this duty, while praying and\nwaiting for the happy event thereof, to wit, our obtaining these graces,\nand so being enabled to conclude that Christ has died for us.\n\n4. If all the absurdities before mentioned will not take place to\noverthrow the doctrine of particular redemption, there is another\nargument, which they, who oppose it, conclude to be unanswerable,\nnamely, that it does not conduce so much to advance the grace of God, as\nto assert that Christ died for all men, inasmuch as more are included\nherein, as the objects of divine favour, therefore God is hereby more\nglorified.\n\nTo this it may be replied, that it does not tend to advance the divine\nperfections, to suppose that God designed to save any that shall perish,\nfor that would be to argue, as has been before considered, that the\npurpose of God, with respect to the salvation of many, is frustrated.\nBut, since the stress of the argument is laid on the display of the\nglory of divine grace; that does not so much consist in the extent of\nthe favour, with respect to a greater number of persons, as it does in\nits being free and undeserved, and tending, for this reason, to lay the\nhighest obligation on those who are concerned herein, which is the most\nknown sense of the word _grace_.\n\nBut inasmuch as it will be objected, that this is only a criticism,\nrespecting the sense of a word, it may be farther replied to it, that if\nthe grace, or goodness of God, be more magnified by universal, than\nparticular redemption, as including more, who are the objects thereof,\nthe same method of reasoning would hold good, and they might as well\nattempt to prove, that there must be an universal salvation of mankind;\nfor that would be a greater display of divine goodness, than for God\nonly to save a few; and it would be yet more eminently displayed, had he\nnot only saved all mankind, but fallen angels. Shall the goodness of God\nbe pretended to be reflected on, because he does not extend it to all\nthat might have been the objects thereof, had he pleased? Has he not a\nright to do what he will with his own? And may not his favour be\ncommunicated in a discriminating way, whereby it will be more advanced\nand adored, by those who are the objects thereof, without our taking\noccasion from thence to reply against him, or say, what dost thou?\n\nAnd to this it may be added, that they, who make use of this method of\nreasoning, ought to consider that it tends as much to militate against\nthe doctrine they maintain, namely, that God hath put all mankind into a\nsalvable state, or that Christ, by his death, procured a possibility of\nsalvation for all; which, according to their argument, is not so great a\ndisplay of the divine goodness, as though God had actually saved all\nmankind, which he might have done; for he might have given repentance\nand remission of sins to all, as well as sent his Son to die for all;\ntherefore, upon this head of argument, universal redemption cannot be\ndefended, without asserting universal salvation. Thus concerning those\nabsurdities which are pretended to be fastened on the doctrine of\nparticular redemption; we proceed to consider the last and principal\nargument that is generally brought against it, namely,\n\n5. That it is contrary to the express words of scripture; and some speak\nwith so much assurance, as though there were not one word in scripture,\nintimating, that our Lord died only for a few, or only for the\nelect;[181] though others will own, that there are some scriptures that\nassert particular redemption, but that these are but few; and therefore\nthe doctrine of universal redemption must be aquiesced in, as being\nmaintained by a far greater number of scriptures: but, in answer to\nthis, let it be considered, that it is not the number of scriptures,\nbrought in defence of either side of the question, that will give any\ngreat advantage to the cause they maintain, unless it could be made\nappear that they understood them in the true and genuine sense of the\nHoly Ghost therein: but this is not to be passed over, without a farther\nenquiry into the sense thereof, which we shall do, and endeavour to\nprove that it does not overthrow the doctrine we have been maintaining,\nhow much soever the mode of expression may seem to oppose it; and, in\norder hereunto, we shall first consider in what sense _all_, _all men_,\n_the world_, _all the world_, and such-like words are taken in\nscripture, as well as in common modes of speaking, in those matters that\ndo not immediately relate to the subject of universal redemption; and\nthen we may, without much difficulty, apply the same limitations to the\nlike manner of speaking, which we find in those scriptures which are\nbrought for the proof of universal redemption. Here we are to enquire\ninto the meaning of those words that are used, which seem to denote the\nuniversality of the subject spoken of, when nothing less is intended\nthereby, in various instances, which have no immediate reference to the\ndoctrine of redemption. And,\n\n(1.) As to the word _all_. It is certain, that it is often used when\nevery individual is not intended thereby: thus we read in Exod. ix. 6.\nthat _all the cattle of Egypt died_, when the plague of murrain was\ninflicted on the beasts; whereas it is said, in the following words,\nthat _none of the cattle of the children of Israel died_; and, from ver.\n3. it appears that none of the _Egyptians\u2019 cattle died_, save those in\n_the field_; and it is plain, that there was a great number of cattle\nthat died not, which were reserved to be cut off by a following plague,\n_viz._ that _of hail_, in ver. 19. Moreover, it is said, in ver. 25.\nthat _the hail smote every herb of the field, and brake every tree of\nthe field_; yet we read, in chap. x. 5. of the locusts _eating the\nresidue of that which escaped, and remained unto them from the hail_.\n\nAgain, we read, in Exod. xxxii. 3. that _all the people brake off the\ngolden ear-rings which were in their ears_, of which Aaron made the\ncalf, which they worshipped; whereas it is not probable that all wore\near-rings; and it is certain, that all did not join with them, who\ncommitted idolatry herein; for the apostle intimates as much, when he\nspeaks of _some of them as being idolaters_, who _sat down to eat and\ndrink, and rose up to play_, 1 Cor. x. 7. And some conclude, that those\nof the tribe of Levi, who _gathered themselves unto Moses_, and joined\nwith him in executing the vengeance of God on the idolaters, are said to\nbe _on the Lord\u2019s side_; not barely because they repented of their\nidolatry, but because they did not join with the rest in it; and, if\nthis be the sense of the text, yet it does not appear that they were all\nexempted from the charge of idolatry, though it be said, that _all the\nsons of Levi were gathered to him_; for we read, in ver. 29. of _every\nman\u2019s slaying his son, and his brother_; and, in Deut. xxxiii. 9. it is\nsaid, on this occasion, that _they did not know their fathers, nor their\nchildren_, that is, they did not spare them; therefore some of that, as\nwell as the other tribes, joined in the idolatry, though they were all\ngathered to Moses, as being on the Lord\u2019s side.\n\nAgain, we read, in Zeph. ii. 14. where the prophet speaks concerning\n_God\u2019s destroying Syria_, and _making Nineveh desolate_, that _all the\nbeasts of the nations shall lodge in the upper lintels of it_; by which\nhe intends that those beasts, that generally lodge in the wilderness, or\nin places remote from cities, such as the _cormorant and bittern_, &c.\nshould take up their residence in those places, which were formerly\ninhabited by the Ninevites; therefore _all the beasts_ cannot be\nsupposed to signify all that were in all parts of the world.\n\nAgain, the prophet Isaiah, in chap. ii. 2. when speaking of the\nmultitude which should _come to the mountain of the Lord\u2019s house_, which\nhe expresses by _all nations coming to it_, explains what is meant by\n_all nations coming to it_, in the following verse, namely, that _many\npeople should say, Let us go up to the mountain of the Lord_; and the\nprophet Micah, referring to the same thing, says, in chap. iv. 2. that\n_many nations shall say, Let us go up to it_, as containing a prediction\nof what was to be fulfilled in the gospel-day, in those that, out of\nvarious nations, adhered to the true religion.\n\nAgain, it is said, in 1 Chron. xiv. 17. that the _fame of David went\nforth into all the lands_, which cannot be meant of those which were far\nremote, but those that were round about Judea.\n\nMoreover, it is said, in Matt. iii. 5, 6. that _Jerusalem, and all\nJudea, and all the region round about Jordan, went out to John, and were\nbaptized of him_; which cannot be understood in any other sense, but\nthat a great number of them went out to him for that purpose. And when\nit is said, in Matt. xxi. 26. that _all men held John as a prophet_, it\nis not to be supposed that the Scribes and Pharisees, and many others,\nwho cast contempt on him, held him to be so; but that there were a great\nmany who esteemed him as such. And when our Saviour says, in Matt. x.\n22. _Ye shall be hated of all men for my name\u2019s sake_, it is certain,\nthat those that embraced Christianity are to be excluded out of their\nnumber who hated them. Again, when it is said, in Acts ii. 5. that\n_there were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews of every nation under heaven_,\nit is not to be supposed that there were Jews residing in every nation,\nwho resorted to Jerusalem; upon which occasion, a learned writer[182]\nputs this question, Were there any who resorted there from England or\nScotland?\n\nAgain, we read, in John iii. 26. that John\u2019s disciples came to him,\ncomplaining, that _Jesus baptized, and all men came unto him_; by which\nnothing more is to be understood, but that many, among the Jews attended\non his ministry, which were, by far, the smaller part of that nation. By\nthese, and many other scriptures, that might be brought to the same\npurpose, it appears, that the word _All_ sometimes denotes not every\nindividual, but a part of mankind.\n\n(2.) Let us now consider the sense in which we are to understand _the\nworld_, or _all the world_; from whence it will appear, that only a\nsmall part of the world is intended thereby in many scriptures: thus the\nPharisees said, upon the occasion of a number of the Jews following our\nSaviour, in John xi. 19. _The world is gone after him_. How small a part\nof the world was the Jewish nation? and how small a part of the Jewish\nnation attended on our Saviour\u2019s ministry? yet this is called _the\nworld_.\n\nAgain, it is said, in Luke ii. 1. _There went out a decree from\nAugustus, that all the world should be taxed_; by which nothing more is\nintended than those countries that were subject to the Roman empire;\nand, in Acts xvii. 26. it is said, that _these that have turned the\nworld upside down, are come hither also_; which cannot be meant in any\nother sense, but those parts of the world where the apostles had\nexercised their ministry. And when the apostle tells the church, in Rom.\ni. 8. that _their faith was spoken of throughout the whole world_, he\nonly means those other churches that were planted in several parts of\nthe world. And, in Acts xi. 28. it is said, that _Agabus signified, by\nthe Spirit, that there should be a great dearth, throughout all the\nworld_; by which nothing is meant but all adjacent countries, which is\nto be taken in the same sense, as when it is said, in Gen. xli. 51. that\n_all countries came into Egypt to buy corn, because the famine was so\nsore in all lands_, that is, in the parts adjacent to Egypt: thus we\nhave sufficient ground to conclude, that _all men_, _the world_, and\n_all the world_, is often taken for a small part of mankind.\n\nBut, that we may be a little more particular in considering the various\nlimitations these words are subject to in scripture, as well as in our\ncommon modes of speaking, let it be observed,\n\n_1st_, That sometimes nothing is intended by all _men_, but all sorts of\nmen, without distinction of sex, nation, estate, quality, and condition,\nof men in the world: thus the apostle says, in 1 Cor. ix. 19. _I made\nmyself servant to all, that I might gain the more_; this he explains in\nthe following verses, as including men of all ranks and characters: _To\nthe Jews, I became a Jew; to them that were under the law, as under the\nlaw; to them that were without the law, as without law; to the weak, I\nbecame weak: I became all things to all men, that by any means I might\ngain some_.\n\n_2dly_, Sometimes the word All, or _the world_, is taken for the\nGentiles, in opposition to the Jews; thus the apostle saith, in Rom. xi.\n12. _Now if the fall of them_, viz. the Jews, _be the riches of the\nworld_, that is, of the Gentiles, as he explains it in the following\nwords; _And the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles, how much\nmore their fulness?_ and in ver. 32. he saith, _God hath concluded all\nin unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all_.[183]\n\n_3dly_, _The world_ is sometimes taken for those who do not believe, in\nopposition to the _church_: thus it is said, in Rev. xiii. 3, 4. _All\nthe world wondered after the beast and they worshipped the dragon_;\nwhich is farther explained, in ver. 8. where it is said, that _all that\ndwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in\nthe book of life_; and in 1 John v. 19. it is said, _We know that we are\nof God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness_, or, as some render\nit,[184] _in the wicked one_, as being subject to Satan; but the church\nis exempted from that charge, notwithstanding the universality of this\nexpression.\n\n_4thly_, Sometimes the word All is limited by the nature of the thing\nspoken of, which is very easy to be understood, though not expressed:\nthus the apostle in Tit. ii. 9. exhorts _servants to be obedient unto\ntheir own masters, and to please them well in all things_; which must be\ncertainly understood as intending all things just, and not contrary to\nthe laws of God, or the civil laws of the land, in which they live.\n\n_5thly_, The word All is often used, not only in scripture, but in our\ncommon modes of speaking, to signify only those, who are the objects of\nthat thing, which is done for them, and then the emphasis is laid on the\naction, or the person that performs it; as when we say, all malefactors\nunder a sentence of death, are to be pardoned by the king; we mean\nnothing else by it, but that all, who are pardoned, do receive their\npardon from him; or when we say, that virtue renders all men happy, and\nvice miserable; we mean, that all who are virtuous are happy, and all\nwho are vicious miserable; not that virtue, abstracted from the exercise\nthereof, makes any happy, or vice miserable; in which case, the word all\nis not taken for every individual person, but only for those who are\neither good or bad: and this is agreeable to the scripture-mode of\nspeaking; as when it is said, in Prov. xxiii. 21. _Drowsiness shall\nclothe a man_, or every man, _with rags_; or sloth reduces all to\npoverty; not all mankind, but all who are addicted to this vice.\n\nMoreover, it is said, in Psal. cxlv. 14. _The Lord upholdeth all that\nfall, and raiseth up all those that be bowed down_; which is not to be\nunderstood, as though God keeps all mankind from falling, or raises\nevery individual person, that is bowed down, so as not to suffer him to\nsink under his burden; but that all who are upheld, or raised up, when\nbowed down, are made partakers of this privilege by the Lord alone.\n\nHaving shewn in what sense the word _All_, or _all the world_, is\nfrequently used in scripture, when not applied to the doctrine of\nredemption; we shall now consider the application thereof unto it,\nwhereby it may appear, that those scriptures, which are generally\nbrought in defence of the doctrine of universal redemption, do not tend\nto support it, or overthrow the contrary doctrine that we are\nmaintaining.\n\n1. The first scripture, that is often referred to for that purpose, is 1\nJohn ii. 2. in which it is said, concerning our Saviour, that _he is the\npropitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins\nof the whole world_. For the understanding of which, we must consider,\nthat it is more than probable that the apostle writes this epistle to\nthe converted Jews, scattered through various countries in Asia, as\nPeter is said to do, 1 Pet. i. 1. and James, James i. 1. for which\nreason they are called general epistles; as likewise this of John is,\ninasmuch as they are not addressed to particular churches among the\nGentiles, converted to the faith, as most of the apostle Paul\u2019s are.\nNow, it is plain, that, in the scripture but now mentioned, when these\nbelieving Jews are given to understand, that Christ is _a propitiation\nfor their sins, and not for their\u2019s only, but for the sins of the whole\nworld_; the meaning is, not for their sins only, who were Jews, but for\nthe sins of the believing Gentiles, or those who were converted by the\nministry of the apostle Paul, who is called _the apostle of the\nGentiles_. This has been before considered to be the meaning of the word\n_world_ in many scriptures; and so the sense is, that the saving effects\nof Christ\u2019s death redound to all who believe, throughout the world,\nwhether Jews or Gentiles.\n\n2. Another scripture generally brought to prove universal redemption,\nis, that in Heb. ii. 9. _That he_, to wit, Christ, _by the grace of God,\nshould taste death for every man_. For the understanding of which, we\nmust have recourse to the words immediately following, which are plainly\nan illustration thereof; accordingly they, for whom Christ tasted death,\nare styled _many sons_, who are to be _brought to glory_; and, in order\nthereunto, _Christ, the Captain of their salvation, was made perfect\nthrough sufferings_, which is an explication of his being _crowned with\nglory and honour, for the suffering of death_; and it plainly proves,\nthat it was for these only that he tasted death, and that by _every\nman_, for whom he tasted it, is meant every one of his sons, or of those\nwho are described, in ver. 11. as _sanctified_, and _whom he is not\nashamed to call brethren_; and they are further styled, in ver. 13. _The\nchildren whom God hath given him_; so that this sense of the words being\nso agreeable to the context, which asserts the doctrine of particular\nredemption, it cannot reasonably be supposed that they are to be taken\nin a sense which has a tendency to overthrow it, or prove that Christ\ndied equally and alike for all men.\n\n3. Another scripture, brought for the same purpose, is 1 Cor. xv. 22.\n_As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive_. But let\nit be considered, that the apostle is not speaking directly concerning\nredemption in this text, but concerning the resurrection of the dead;\nand, if it be understood of a glorious resurrection unto eternal life,\nno one can suppose that every individual of mankind shall be made\npartaker of this blessing, which is also obvious, from what is said in\nthe verse immediately following, where they who are said to be made\nalive in Christ, are described as such, whom he has a special propriety\nin, _Christ the first fruits, afterward they that are Christ\u2019s at his\ncoming_; and therefore the meaning is only this, that all of them, who\nshall be raised up in glory, shall obtain this privilege by Christ,\nwhose resurrection was the first-fruits thereof.\n\nI am sensible that the reason of the application of this scripture to\nprove universal redemption, is principally taken from the opposition\nthat there seems to be between the death of all mankind in Adam, and the\nlife which is obtained by Christ; and therefore they suppose, that the\nhappiness, which we enjoy by him, is of equal extent with the misery we\nsustained by the fall of Adam: but, if this were the sense of the text,\nit must prove an universal salvation, and not barely the possibility\nthereof; since the apostle is speaking of a privilege that should be\nconferred in the end of time, and not of that which we enjoy under the\ngospel-dispensation; accordingly it does not, in the least, answer the\nend for which it is brought.\n\n4. The next scripture, by which it is supposed that universal redemption\nmay be defended, is that in Rom. v. 18. _As by the offence of one,\njudgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness\nof one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life_. For\nthe understanding of which scripture, let it be considered, that the\nblessing, which is said to extend to all, is no less than justification\nof life, and not merely a possibility of attaining salvation; and, in\nthe foregoing verse, they, who are interested in this privilege, are\nsaid to _receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness_,\nand _to reign in life by Jesus Christ_. Now certainly this privilege is\ntoo great to be applied to the whole world; and, indeed, that which the\napostle, in this verse, considers, as being _upon all men unto\njustification of life_, he explains, when he says, _Many shall be made\nrighteous_; therefore _this free gift, which came upon all men unto\njustification_, intends nothing else, but that a select number, who are\nsaid to be many, or the whole multitude of those who do, or shall\nbelieve, shall be made righteous.\n\n_Object._ If it be objected to this sense of the text, that there is an\nopposition between that judgment which came by the offence of one, to\nwit, Adam, upon all men, unto condemnation, and that righteousness,\nwhich came upon all men, unto justification; and therefore all men must\nbe taken in the same sense in both parts of the verse, and consequently\nmust be extended to all the world.\n\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that it is not necessary, nor\nreasonable, to suppose, that these terms of opposition have any respect\nto the universal extent of condemnation and justification; for the\napostle\u2019s design is not to compare the number of those who shall be\njustified, with that of those who were condemned by the fall of Adam;\nbut to compare the two heads together, Adam and Christ, and to shew,\nthat as we are liable to condemnation by the one, so we obtain the gift\nof righteousness by the other; which is plainly the apostle\u2019s method of\nreasoning, agreeable to the whole scope of the chapter, as may easily be\nobserved, by those who compare these words with several foregoing\nverses.\n\n5. There is another scripture brought to prove universal redemption, in\n2 Cor. v. 14, 15. _The love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus\njudge, that if one died for all, then were all dead_; by which it is\nsupposed, that the apostle is here proving that all mankind are dead in\nsin, and that the medium by which he proves it, is Christ\u2019s dying for\nall men; so that the remedy is as extensive as the disease, and\ntherefore that this is an undeniable proof of universal redemption.\n\nBut this is not a true representation of the apostle\u2019s method of\nreasoning; for he designs not to prove that all were dead in sin, but to\nit. That this may appear, let us consider the connexion of this text\nwith what goes before. The apostle speaks of them, in the foregoing\nverses, as having assurance of their future salvation, and as _groaning\nto be clothed upon with their house, which is from heaven_; and as\nhaving the _first fruits of the Spirit_, and says that the apostles were\nmade manifest in their consciences, that is, they had something in their\nown consciences that evinced the success of their ministry to them, upon\nwhich account they had occasion to glory on their behalf; all which\nexpressions denote them to have been in a converted state. And the\napostle adds, in ver. 13. _Whether we be beside ourselves, or whether we\nbe sober_, that is, whether we have a greater or less degree of fervency\nin preaching the gospel, it is for God, that is for his glory, and for\nyour sakes; for the love of Christ, that is, either his love to us, or\nour love to him, constraineth us hereunto; because we thus judge, that\nif one, namely, Christ, died for all, that is, for you all, then were\nall dead, or you all are dead, that is, not dead in sin, but you are\nmade partakers of that communion which believers have with Christ in his\ndeath, whereby they are said to be dead unto sin, and unto the world;\nand the result hereof is, that they are obliged to live not to\nthemselves but to Christ. This seems more agreeable to the design of the\napostle, than to suppose that he intends only to prove the fall of man,\nfrom his being recovered by Christ, since there is no appearance of any\nargument to the like purpose, in any other part of the apostle\u2019s\nwritings; whereas our being dead to sin, as the consequence of Christ\u2019s\ndeath, is what he often mentions, and, indeed, it seems to be one of his\npeculiar phrases: thus he speaks of believers, as _being dead to sin_,\nRom. vi. 2. and _dead with Christ_, ver. 8. and elsewhere he says, _You\nare dead_, Col. iii. 3. that is, you have communion with Christ, in his\ndeath, or are dead unto sin; and the apostle speaks of _their being dead\nwith Christ from the rudiments of the world_, chap. ii. 20. that is, if\nyou have communion with Christ, in his death, you are obliged not to\nobserve the ceremonial law, which is called the rudiments of the world;\nand, in several other places, he speaks of believers being crucified,\ndead, buried, and risen, from the dead, as having communion with Christ\ntherein, or being made partakers of those benefits which he procured\nthereby. If, therefore, this be the apostle\u2019s frequent method of\nspeaking, why may not we suppose, that in this verse, under our present\nconsideration, he argues, that because _Christ died for them all_,\ntherefore _they were_, or _they are all dead_;[185] And, being thus\ndead, they are obliged, as he observes in the following verse, _not to\nlive to themselves, but to Christ that died for them_, and thereby\nprocured this privilege, which they are made partakers of. If this sense\nof the text be but allowed to be equally probable with the other, it\nwill so far weaken the force thereof, as that it will not appear, from\nthis scripture, that Christ died for all men.\n\n6. Universal redemption is attempted to be proved, from John iii. 16.\n_God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that\nwhosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting\nlife_: But, if we understand _the world_, as taken for the Gentiles, as\nit is oftentimes in scripture, then the sense of the text seems to be\nthis, which is not inconsistent with special redemption, namely, that\nthe love of God, which was expressed in sending his Son to die for those\nwhom he designed hereby to redeem, is of a much larger extent, as to the\nobjects thereof, than it was in former ages; for it includes in it not\nonly those who believe among the Jews, but whosoever believes in him,\nthroughout the world; not that their believing in him is the foundation,\nor cause, but the effect of his love, and is to be considered as the\ncharacter of the persons, who are the objects thereof. In this sense, we\nare also to understand another scripture, in John i. 29. _Behold the\nLamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world_, that is, of all\nthose whose sins are expiated hereby, throughout the whole world.\n\n7. The doctrine of universal redemption is farther maintained, from our\nSaviour\u2019s words, in John vi. 33. _The bread of God is he that cometh\ndown from heaven, and giveth life unto the world_; which is explained in\nver. 51. _I am the living bread, which came down from heaven; if any man\neat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will\ngive, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world_: But it\ndoes not appear, that Christ hereby intends that his death was a price\nof redemption paid for all mankind; for he speaks of the application of\nredemption, which is expressed by his giving life, and not barely of his\nprocuring a possibility of its being attained; and they, to whom he\ngives this privilege, are described as applying it to themselves, by\nfaith, which is doubtless, the meaning of that metaphorical expression,\nwhereby persons are said to _eat of this bread_, or _his flesh_; so that\nthe meaning of this scripture is, that the death of Christ is appointed,\nas the great means whereby all men, throughout the whole world, who\napply it by faith, should attain eternal life: But this cannot be said\nof all, without exemption; and therefore it does not from hence appear,\nthat Christ\u2019s death was designed to procure life for the world.\n\n8. There is another scripture, brought to the same purpose, in Matt.\nxviii. 11. _The Son of man is come to save that which is lost_, that is,\nas they suppose, all that were lost; and consequently, since the whole\nworld was brought into a lost state by the fall, Christ came to save\nthem. The whole stress of this argument is laid on the sense that they\ngive of the Greek word[186], which we render, _that which was lost_,\nwhereby they understand every one that was lost; whereas it only\ndenotes, that salvation supposes them, that have an interest in it, to\nhave been in a lost state. And, indeed, the text does not seem\nimmediately to respect the purchase of redemption, or salvation, by\nChrist\u2019s shedding his blood, as a Priest, but the application thereof,\nin effectually calling, and thereby saving lost sinners. This is\nillustrated by the parable of _the lost sheep_, (in the following\nwords,) which the shepherd brings back to the fold, upon which occasion\nhe says, that _it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven,\nthat one of these little ones should perish_. And this farther appears,\nfrom our Saviour\u2019s using the same mode of speaking, with this addition,\nthat _he came to seek_, as well as to _save_, Luke xix. 9, 10. them,\nupon the occasion of his converting Zaccheus, and telling him, that\n_salvation was come to his house_. And this agrees well with that\nprediction relating to Christ\u2019s executing his Prophetical office, in the\nsalvation of his people, as being their Shepherd; in which he is\nrepresented, as saying, _I will seek that which was lost, and bring\nagain that which was driven away, and will bind up that which was\nbroken, and will strengthen that which was sick_, Ezek. xxxiv. 16.\nMoreover, the parable of the _lost sheep_, which Christ recovered,\nappears by its connexion with the foregoing verses, to have a particular\nrespect to those _little_, or humble _ones_, that believe in him, who\nwent astray, by reason of some offences that were cast in their way; and\ntherefore, when he had denounced a threatening against those who should\noffend any of them, and cautioned the world that they should not do\nthis, by despising them, Matt, xviii. 6, 10. he supposes this treatment\nwould cause some of them to go astray; upon which he says, that one of\nhis ends of coming into the world, was to seek, to save, and to recover\nthem.\n\n9. Universal redemption is farther argued, from the universality of\ndivine grace; and accordingly that text is often referred to, in Tit.\nii. 11. _The grace of God that bringeth salvation, hath appeared to all\nmen_: But this seems very remote from the sense of the Holy Ghost, in\nthese words; for by _the grace of God_ is meant the gospel, that brings\nthe glad tidings of salvation; and its _appearing to all men_, signifies\nbeing preached to the Gentiles: or suppose, by _the grace of God_, we\nunderstand the display of his grace in the work of redemption, it is not\nsaid, that it was designed for, or applied to all men, but only that the\npublication thereof is more general than it had formerly been. And when\nthe apostle, in ver. 14. speaks more particularly concerning redemption,\nhe alters his mode of expression, and considers it, with its just\nlimitation, with respect to the objects thereof, _viz._ that _he gave\nhimself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify\nunto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works_. We shall add but\none scripture more, which is brought in defence of universal redemption,\n_viz._\n\n10. That in which the apostle speaks of God, in 1 Tim. iv. 10. as _the\nSaviour of all men, especially of those that believe_; wherein universal\nredemption is not asserted in the same sense in which they maintain it,\n_viz._ that God hath brought all men into a salvable state, so that they\nmay be saved if they will: But the meaning of this scripture is, that\n_God is the Saviour of all men_, that is, his common bounty extends\nitself to all, as the Psalmist observes, _The Lord is good to all, and\nhis tender mercies are over all his works_, Psal. cxlv. 9. but he is\n_more especially the Saviour of them that believe_, inasmuch as they are\ninterested in the special benefits purchased by his redemption, who are\nsaid to be _saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation_, Isa. xlv.\n17.\n\nThere are several other scriptures brought to prove universal\nredemption, as when it is said, that _God will have all men to be saved,\nand come to the knowledge of the truth_, 1 Tim. ii. 4. and, _The Lord is\nnot willing that any should perish, but that all should come to\nrepentance_, 2 Pet. iii. 9. which have been before considered[187]; and\ntherefore we pass them over at present, and some other scriptures, from\nwhence it is argued, that Christ died for all, because he died for some\nthat shall perish, as when the apostle speaks of some _false teachers,\nwho deny the Lord that bought them_, 2 Pet. ii. 1. and another, _Destroy\nnot him with thy meat, for whom Christ died_, Rom. xiv. 15. and that in\nwhich the apostle speaks of a person _who counted the blood of the\ncovenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing_, Heb. x. 29. and\nsome other scriptures to the like purpose, the consideration whereof I\nshall refer to a following answer[188], in which the doctrine of the\nsaints\u2019 perseverance is defended.[189]\n\nThus concerning the first branch of Christ\u2019s Priestly office, consisting\nin his offering himself a sacrifice, without spot, to God, and the\npersons for whom this was done. We should now proceed to consider the\nsecond branch thereof, consisting in his making continual intercession\nfor them, for whom he offered up himself: But, this being particularly\ninsisted on in a following answer[190], we shall pass it over at\npresent, and proceed to consider the execution of his Kingly office.\n\nFootnote 143:\n\n _Vid. Ephiph. H\u00e6r. Page 67. \u00a7 7._\n\nFootnote 144:\n\n _Among the latter, is the learned Dr. Lightfoot. See his Works, Vol.\n I. Page 12. and Vol. II. Page 327._\n\nFootnote 145:\n\n _We have no account of the year when this battle was fought; but it is\n evident that it was before Isaac was born, and consequently before\n Abraham had lived 25 years in the land of Canaan. And that Shem was\n then living, appears from hence, that from the flood to Abraham\u2019s\n coming into the land of Canaan, was 427 years, as appears by\n considering the sum total of the years of the lives of the patriarchs,\n mentioned in_ Gen. xi. 10. _& seq. and also that Terah was 130 years\n old when Abraham was born, as appears, by comparing_ Gen. xi. 32.\n _with_ Acts vii. 4. _and_ Gen. xii. 4. _and by considering Abraham as\n 75 years old, as it is there said he was, when he left Haran. Now Shem\n was born 98 or 100 years before the flood, as appears by comparing_\n Gen. v. 32. _with_ chap. xi. 10. _and_ vii. 11. _Therefore, when\n Abraham went out of his country into the land of Canaan, Shem was 525\n or 527 years old; and, when Shem died, he was 600 years old_, Gen. xi.\n 10, 11. _therefore Shem lived more than half a hundred years after\n this battle was fought_.\n\nFootnote 146:\n\n _See Jurieu\u2019s critical history_, vol. I. chap. 11.\n\nFootnote 147:\n\n As yet there was no church.\n\nFootnote 148:\n\n _See critical history_, vol. I. page 110.\n\nFootnote 149:\n\n _This opinion is maintained by Cun\u00e6us, [Vid. ejusd. Repub. Hebr. Lib.\n III. cap. 3.] and some others after him._\n\nFootnote 150:\n\n \u201cSome insist that he is none other than the _Son of God_ himself, who,\n assuming the _appearance_, or _reality_, of humanity, exhibited to\n Abraham an early picture of his future priesthood.\n\n \u201cThis is all over contemptible.\u20141. Because every high priest is taken\n from among men; the _appearance_ of humanity is not enough.\u20142. Because\n if he was at that time a priest, and discharged the duties of his\n office, he must have \u2018suffered often,\u2019 (twice) \u2018from the beginning of\n the world;\u2019 and not \u2018by the once offering up of himself have for ever\n perfected them who are sanctified:\u2019 then, moreover, Abraham would have\n received the promised blessing, contrary to the scriptures: and, in\n fine, the appearance of the Son of God, as the Son of Mary, was\n superfluous. If, to avoid those absurdities, it be alleged that though\n he appeared as a priest, he did not discharge the duties of his\n office: then, in the first place, he is degraded into a mere pageant,\n an officer without functions: and, in the second place, he is stripped\n of all typical character: for the priest who neither _sacrifices_, nor\n _intercedes_, can never be a type of one who does _both_.\u20143. Because,\n if Melchisedec was the Son of God, whether in real humanity, or only\n in its appearance, _he_ must have been a type of _himself_; the ideas\n of _identity_ and _similarity_ are confounded; and Paul instead of\n saying, \u03b1\u03c6\u03c9\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c9 \u03c5\u03b9\u03c9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5, that he was \u2018made like to the\n Son of God,\u2019 should have said, \u03c9\u03bd \u03bf \u03c5\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5, that he was the Son\n of God.\u20144. Because it would be unworthy the manly sense of Paul, to\n say nothing of _inspiration_, to labour through a long dissertation to\n prove a mere truism, which it would disgrace an ideot to utter, and\n insult a child to offer for information; namely, that Messiah\u2019s\n priesthood was very like itself.\u20145. Because it would be extremely\n irreverent to suppose, that the adorable God lifted up his hand and\n swore, that his Son\u2019s priesthood, should be like his Son\u2019s priesthood.\n An identical proposition does not require such a solemn confirmation.\u201d\n\n GRAY ON PRIESTHOOD.\n\nFootnote 151:\n\n _He liveth_ for any thing to the contrary shewn in his history.\n\nFootnote 152:\n\n \u201cThat _death_ is a punishment for sin, and that all mankind are by\n death offered as a _sacrifice_ for sin, is not only a doctrine of\n revealed Religion, but the plain dictate of Reason. For, though it is\n Revelation alone that can teach us, how God threatened death as the\n punishment of a particular sin, yet Reason must be obliged to\n acknowledge, that men die, because they are sinners. But if men die,\n because they are sinners, and Reason itself must receive this, as the\n most justifiable cause of Death; then Reason must allow, that the\n death of all mankind is appointed by the true God, as a _sacrifice_\n for sin. But, if Reason must acknowledge the death of all mankind as a\n sacrifice for sin, then it can have no just objection against the\n sacrifice of Christ, _because_ it was _human_.\n\n \u201cRevelation, therefore, teaches nothing more hard to be believed on\n this point, than Reason teaches. For, if it be just and fit in God, to\n _appoint_ and _devote_ all men to death, as the proper _punishment_ of\n their sins; how can it be proved to be unjust and unfit in God, to\n receive the death of Jesus Christ, for the same ends?\u201d\n\n HUMAN REASON.\n\nFootnote 153:\n\n All the reasons upon which pardons are granted in human governments\n fail in the Divine.\n\nFootnote 154:\n\n \u201cThe scripture insists on full atonement, and yet every where holds up\n the deliverance of sinners as an act of pure grace. This is a gordian\n knot in divinity. Let us not by violence cut it asunder, but attempt\n fairly to untie it.\n\n Before we proceed, it may not be improper to observe, that the\n greatest difficulty with which this part of the subject is\n embarrassed, appears to have originated in the want of an accurate\n definition of justice and grace. Theologians have said much about\n these, yet few have defined them with sufficient accuracy to render\n them intelligible, or make them appear consistent. I shall therefore,\n\n _First_, explain the meaning of the word grace.\n\n _Secondly_, the meaning of the word justice.\n\n _Thirdly_, apply these explanations to this part of the subject, with\n a view to solve the difficulty with which it is embarrassed.\n\n _First._ What are we to understand by the word grace?\n\n We are to understand by it the exercise of favour, and consequently\n the bestowment of good where evil is deserved, and may in justice be\n inflicted. Where there is no exposure to evil, there is no room for\n the exercise of grace. He who is not guilty is not a subject of\n pardon. He who does not deserve punishment cannot be said to be freed\n from it by an act of favour. Grace therefore always implies, that the\n subject of it is unworthy, and would have no reason to complain, if\n all the evil to which he is exposed were inflicted on him. Grace will\n appear great according to the view which the sinner has of his own ill\n desert, and the consciousness he possesses of the punishment or evil\n from which he is delivered. Grace and justice are opposite in their\n nature. Grace gives; justice demands. Their provinces are entirely\n separate. Though they are united, yet they are not blended in man\u2019s\n salvation. Hence that remarkable passage in Rom. xi. 6: \u2018If by grace,\n then it is no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace. But if\n it be of works, then it is no more grace, otherwise work is no more\n work.\u2019\n\n _Secondly._ What are we to understand by the word justice? It assumes\n three denominations\u2014commutative, distributive, and public.\n\n 1. Commutative justice respects property only.[155] \u2018It consists in an\n equal exchange of benefits,\u2019 or in restoring to every man his own.\n\n 2. Distributive justice respects the moral character of men. It\n respects them as accountable creatures, obedient or disobedient. It\n consists in ascertaining their virtue and sin, and in bestowing just\n rewards, or inflicting just punishments.\n\n 3. Public or general justice, respects what is fit or right, as to the\n character of God, and the good of the universe. In this sense, justice\n comprises all moral goodness, and properly means the righteousness or\n rectitude of God, by which all his actions are guided, with a supreme\n regard to the greatest good. Justice, considered in this view, forbids\n that any thing should take place in the great plan of God, which would\n tarnish his glory, or subvert the authority of his law.\n\n _Thirdly._ Let us now apply these explanations to the solution of the\n difficulty under consideration.\n\n 1. Did Christ satisfy commutative justice? Certainly not. Commutative\n justice had no concern in his sufferings. Men had taken no property\n from God, and consequently were under no obligation to restore any.\n But do not the scriptures represent Christ as giving himself a ransom,\n and as buying his people with a price? They do. They also represent\n men, while under the influence of sin, as prisoners, slaves, captives.\n These expressions are all figurative, borrowed from sensible to\n express moral or spiritual things, and therefore are not to be\n explained as if literally true. If we say that Christ hath redeemed\n us, that he has bought us, that he has paid the debt and discharged\n us\u2014if we have any consistent meaning, it must be this: That in\n consequence of what Christ has done, we are delivered from sin, in as\n great a consistency with justice, as a debtor is delivered from his\n obligation, or the demands of law, when his debt is paid. That is, God\n extends pardon in such a way, through Christ, that he does not injure\n the authority of his law, but supports it as effectually as if he\n inflicted punishment.\n\n 2. Did Christ satisfy distributive justice? Certainly not.\n Distributive justice respects personal character only. It condemns men\n because they are sinners, and rewards them because they are righteous.\n Their good or ill desert are the only ground on which distributive or\n moral justice respects them. But good and ill desert are personal.\n They imply consciousness of praise or blame, and cannot be transferred\n or altered so as to render the subjects of them more or less worthy.\n What Christ did, therefore, did not take ill desert from men, nor did\n it place them in such a situation that God would act unjustly to\n punish them according to their deeds. If a man has sinned, it will\n always remain a truth that he has sinned, and that according to\n distributive justice he deserves punishment. In this sense justice\n admits the condemnation of Paul as much as it does of Judas. The\n salvation of the former is secured, and his condemnation rendered\n impossible by another consideration.\n\n 3: Did Christ satisfy public justice? Undoubtedly he did. This is\n evident from what has already been advanced respecting the necessity\n of atonement, in order to a consistent exercise of mercy. Christ\u2019s\n sufferings rendered it right and fit, with respect to God\u2019s character\n and the good of the universe, to forgive sin. The atonement made by\n Christ presented the law, the nature of sin, and the displeasure of\n God against it, in such a light, that no injury would accrue to the\n moral system, no imputation would be against the righteousness of the\n great Legislator, though he should forgive the sinner, and instate him\n in eternal felicity. Perfect justice therefore is done to the\n universe, though all transgressors be not punished according to their\n personal demerit. The death of Christ therefore is to be considered as\n a great, important, and public transaction, respecting God and the\n whole system of rational beings. Public justice requires, that neither\n any of these be injured, nor the character and government of the great\n Legislator disrespected, by the pardon of any. In these respects\n public justice is perfectly satisfied by the death of Christ. This is\n evident from the following passages of scripture. Rom. iii. 21; \u2018But\n now the righteousness (rectitude or justice) of God is manifested\n without the law, being witnessed by the law.\u2019 Before the introduction\n of these words, the apostle had demonstrated, that the whole world,\n Jews and Gentiles, were all under sin and condemnation. \u2018Now,\u2019 says\n he, \u2018we know that whatsoever things the law saith, it saith to them\n that are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole\n world become guilty before God.\u2019 All, if treated according to\n distributive justice, must be found guilty and condemned. \u2018Therefore,\u2019\n says Paul, \u2018by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified.\u2019 How,\n then, it might be inquired, can any be justified, and yet God not give\n up his law, but appear perfectly righteous and just? The answer\n follows. \u2018By the righteousness of God, which is manifested without the\n law, being witnessed by the law.\u2019 Rom. iii. 21. That is, the\n righteousness or justice of God, with respect to himself and the\n universe, is clearly manifested, though he do not execute the law, as\n to distributive justice, on transgressors, but pardon and save them.\n This is so far from being contrary to the law, that it is witnessed by\n the law. For the sufferings of Christ demonstrate, that God no more\n gives up the penalty of the law, than if he should inflict it on the\n original transgressor. The righteousness or justice manifested in this\n way is through Christ; \u2018whom,\u2019 says Paul, \u2018God hath set forth to be a\n propitiation, through faith in his blood.\u2019 For what end? \u2018To declare\n his righteousness for the remission of sins.\u2019 \u2018To declare at this time\n his righteousness (for this purpose) that he might be just, and the\n justifier of him that believeth in Jesus,\u2019 Rom. iii. 25, 26. Hence it\n is said, \u2018Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one\n that believeth,\u2019 Rom. x. 4. That is, the end of the law is as fully\n answered in the salvation of men by Christ, as it would have been if\n they had never transgressed, but had obtained life by perfect\n obedience. It is said, \u2018If we confess our sins, he is just to forgive\n us our sins,\u2019 1 John i. 9. He is just to himself, to his law, to the\n universe. God styles himself \u2018a just God, and a Saviour.\u2019 Is. xlv. 21.\n Hence justice and mercy harmonize in man\u2019s salvation.\n\n From the preceding statement of the nature of grace and justice, it\n appears,\n\n _First_, That atonement, and consequently the pardon of sin, have no\n respect to commutative justice.\n\n _Secondly_, That the sufferings of Christ did not satisfy distributive\n justice, since that respects personal character only; and therefore,\n with respect to distributive justice, salvation is an act of perfect\n grace.\n\n _Thirdly_, That Christ\u2019s sufferings satisfied public justice; and\n therefore, with respect to public justice, salvation is an act of\n perfect justice.\n\n Thus the seeming inconsistency between full atonement for sin, and\n pure grace in salvation, vanishes and disappears. The system of\n redemption rises into view like a magnificent edifice, displaying the\n greatest order, proportion and beauty.\u201d\n\n DR. MAXCY.\n\n \u201cTo reconcile grace with justice in the salvation of the sinner, is\n the Gordian knot, which divines generally have been unable to untie.\n Upon the principle of an indefinite atonement, the difficulty\n vanishes. If all the sins of a certain individual have been atoned for\n by the Redeemer, free grace will not appear in his pardon; because\n justice would, in that case, require his salvation. But justice is\n threefold, _commutative_, _distributive_, and _public_. Commutative\n justice has no concern in this case. Public justice is satisfied by\n the atonement, because the governor of the universe displays his\n displeasure at _sin in general_ in the sufferings of Christ. The\n exercise of distributive justice is entirely set aside, and herein is\n grace exhibited, the sinner is pardoned at the expence of distributive\n justice.\u201d\n\n \u201cAlthough we have stated this argument with all the precision of which\n we are capable, we must observe, that notwithstanding the show of\n minute discussion which it makes, its whole force consists in its\n obscurity, and the confusion of ideas which it produces. The\n indistinctness of vision which it causes, is the only reason for any\n man\u2019s offering his hand to those who, by proposing it, promise to be\n his guide to the temple of truth.\n\n We object to this division of a divine attribute\u2014we object to the use\n which is made of it\u2014we object to the argument, because it multiplies,\n instead of solving difficulties\u2014and it takes for granted, what does\n not exist, a difficulty in reconciling justice with grace.\n\n We object to this division of a divine attribute. It is not correct,\n even as it applies to man. We are perfectly aware that the\n _Schoolmen_, following the steps of heathen philosophers, adopted this\n division. Suarez builds upon it the doctrine of merit, in order to\n supply the traffic of indulgences with works of supererogation.[156]\n But, however variously divine justice may be exercised about its\n several objects, we have no reason to believe, that there are three\n different attributes of justice, or even that the principle in man,\n which induces him to act honestly in commercial transactions, and to\n give to every man his due, is any way different from the principle\n which influences a good magistrate to conduct with equity his public\n administration. It is one principle exercised upon various objects.\n The Scriptures, which uniformly ascribe righteousness to Jehovah, and\n afford instances of its exercise in _thrice three_ various ways, never\n intimate that there are _three distinct_ attributes of divine\n justice.[157]\n\n We object to the use that is made of this division. There is no reason\n for excluding _commutative_ justice any more than distributive, as\n distinct from _public_ justice, from having any reference to the case\n of the sinner\u2019s pardon. We can readily conceive of a civil ruler,\n having, independently of his official duties, certain private and\n personal duties to discharge towards those, who, in such case, are\n upon terms of equality with himself. But no equality exists between\n the creature and Creator. The pardon of sin most assuredly approaches\n as near to the forgiveness of a _debt_ as the remission of a _personal\n offence_, which has no reference to the divine authority. _Sin is a\n want of conformity unto, or a transgression of_ THE LAW.[158] Besides,\n the Scriptures frequently represent Jehovah condescending to act\n towards men upon the footing of a previously existing contract or\n covenant, but never upon the footing of private relation, setting\n aside his authority. He hath taught us to pray, \u201cForgive us our\n debts;\u201d but never to say, \u201cpardon private offences which are no\n transgression of thy law.\u201d We cannot even conceive of the exercise of\n distributive justice by the Lord, separate from his authority as our\n king, our lawgiver, and our judge. We cannot conceive, that it is\n matter of indifference whether God does or does not exercise\n distributive justice towards his creatures; and much less can we admit\n that even, for the sake of mercy, he is ever guilty of one act of\n distributive injustice. We, therefore, object to the use which is made\n of this threefold division of the attribute of justice. And we also,\n\n Object to the whole argument which it involves, because it multiplies\n instead of solving difficulties around the doctrine of the sinner\u2019s\n justification.\n\n It requires us to believe that God has violated, or set aside the\n demands of distributive justice in the salvation of his chosen\u2014that\n the sufferings of our Redeemer were the punishment, not of\n transgressions which are, in fact, committed, but of sin in the\n abstract\u2014and that public justice requires only an exhibition of the\n divine displeasure at sin.\n\n Sin, in the abstract, is only a word. Like an algebraical character,\n it represents all the transgressions of individual persons. These\n particular sins are realities; but sin _in general_, or in the\n abstract, is only the _sign_, the word, which we employ in\n reasoning.[159] It is not for the _sign_, but the thing that Jesus\n suffered.\n\n The _word_ sin, too, represents the transgressions of angels. If the\n Redeemer suffered for sin in general, he made atonement for devils,\n although he took not on him the nature of angels. And if public\n justice demanded no more than the display of Jehovah\u2019s hatred of sin,\n then Christ is dead in vain, for such display is made in the\n everlasting punishments of Hell. But justice demanded more. It\n demanded the punishment of the sinner; and could not be satisfied with\n any thing short of this, unless Messiah should so unite himself to\n sinners, not only by assuming their nature, but by becoming in law\n their representative, as to bear all the sins of all the persons for\n whom his sufferings were intended to atone. We object also to this\n argument in defence of indefinite atonement,\n\n Because it takes for granted, what does not exist, that if all the\n demands of divine justice are satisfied to the full by the atonement,\n then grace is excluded from our pardon. This is not the case. Justice\n is indeed satisfied. It does not oppose, but demand the salvation of\n all for whom Christ died. Here is no difficulty\u2014no Gordian knot. Grace\n reigns through righteousness. We refer our readers to what is said on\n this subject, page 377, and conclude our examination of this argument\n in the words of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster. \u201cAlthough\n Christ, by his obedience and death, did make a proper, real, and full\n satisfaction to God\u2019s justice in the behalf of them that are\n justified; yet, inasmuch as God accepteth the satisfaction from a\n surety, which he might have demanded of them, and did provide this\n surety, his own only son, imputing his righteousness to them, and\n requiring nothing of them for their justification, but faith, which\n also is his gift, their justification is to them of free grace.\u201d\n\n CHRISTIAN\u2019S MAGAZINE, VOL. III.\n\n Atonement imports reconciliation, a being _at one_. The Hebrew\n signifies to _cover_. The Greek word denotes a _commutation_, as of\n enmity for friendship. But we use atonement for _ransom_, or _price_,\n and we never pray for it. Redemption imports a deliverance. To say\n that the ransom was paid _indefinitely_, that is, not more for one\n than another, is plainly contrary to his views, who spoke of those who\n were _given to him_, and of his _laying down his life for his sheep_.\n His sacrifice was real, and its object could not be _sin in general_,\n a mere abstract term; a sacrifice of which Satan might avail himself,\n as well as man. If the atonement, and redemption be indefinite, so\n were the decrees or purposes, the suretyship of Christ, the\n foreknowledge of God, and the promotion of the glory of God in the\n work.\n\n On the other hand, to represent these transactions, so strictly as\n matters of debt, and credit, as that the quantum of price was exactly\n commensurate to the guilt of the saved, and neither more nor less, is\n not warranted by the word of God. This is to impute the cause of\n damnation to Christ\u2019s not having died for those who perish; and not to\n their guilt. Both these conclusions are erroneous. Christ died for\n _all men_, and _every man_, not in the sense of the universalists, not\n in the same sense as he died for his sheep; but that his sacrifice is\n sufficient for all; and God the Father, whose mercy can reach no\n fallen creature, but in Christ, has authorized the offer of covenant\n mercy to all; and desires the destruction of none. Thus men perish\n only by their sins. The Sacrifice of Christ is of infinite value, for\n he is a Divine person; and the sins of all men can be no more than\n infinite.\n\n The truth seems to be, that the sacrifice is infinite; that the offer\n is to be general; that man perishes by his own fault only; and all\n this is according to the eternal purposes of God. Nevertheless the\n salvation of the saints was certain; the price particularly paid with\n a view to them; who are eventually effectually called, justified,\n sanctified, and brought to glory.\n\nFootnote 155:\n\n See Doddridge\u2019s Lectures, p. 190; and also Dr. Edwards\u2019 third sermon,\n preached it New Haven, 1735.\n\nFootnote 156:\n\n See Owen on Jus. chap. ii.\n\nFootnote 157:\n\n \u201cWere this the proper place, it would be easy to show, by a criticism\n on the best writers upon this subject, that their definitions of\n commutative, distributive, and public justice, interfere, and are\n otherwise essentially incorrect.\u201d\n\nFootnote 158:\n\n Shorter Catechism.\n\nFootnote 159:\n\n \u201cDid we deem it eligible to introduce metaphysics into this\n discussion, we could more effectually expose the idea of punishing a\n _nonentity_\u2014\u2018sin in the abstract.\u2019 We are no conceptualists; and the\n controversy between the Nominalists and Realists is now at an end. It\n prevailed long enough. It agitated the European universities,\n interested thrones, and shed much precious blood. No philosopher will\n now defend the opinions of the Realists. Abstract terms have no\n counterpart in nature. Stew. Phil. Mind. ch. iv. \u00a7 2, & 3.\u201d\n\nFootnote 160:\n\n _See Quest. XXXVIII._\n\nFootnote 161:\n\n _These, which are styled_, Passiones trihori\u00e6, ultim\u00e6, _are generally\n called_, P\u00e6n\u00e6 satisfactori\u00e6; _and all his sufferings before them_,\n P\u00e6n\u00e6 convincentes.\n\nFootnote 162:\n\n _It is an abominable strain of blasphemy, which some Popish writers\n make use of, when they say that not only the cross was the altar, but\n that it was sacred, and had a virtue to sanctify the gift offered\n thereon, which is the foundation of that idolatrous adoration which\n they give to it._\n\nFootnote 163:\n\n \u039b\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 164:\n\n _There are several propositions used, in the New Testament, in\n explaining this doctrine, namely_, \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9, \u03c5\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1, _and_ \u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9; \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\n _and_ \u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9 _refer to the occasion and cause of Christ\u2019s death, to wit,\n our sins: Thus it is said, in Rom._ iv. 25. Who was delivered for our\n offences, \u039f\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf\u03b8\u03b7 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b7\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd; _and, in 1 Pet._ iii.\n 18. Christ also hath once suffered for sins, \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03b8\u03b5;\n _and, in this case, his substitution in our room and stead is\n principally argued, from its being for our sins, for which death was\n due. As for_ \u03c5\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1, _whenever it refers to Christ\u2019s sufferings, it\n plainly signifies his being substituted in our room and stead; as in_\n Rom. v. 6. Christ died \u03c5\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u03c9\u03bd, for the ungodly; _and, in_ Tit.\n ii. 14. Who gave himself for us, \u039f\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c5\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03b7\u03bc\u03c9\u03bd. _And this\n is not only used in the New Testament to signify the substitution of\n the person dying in the room of another, or, in other instances,\n acting in his stead; as in_ 2 Cor. v. 20. Phil. ver. 13. _but it is\n taken in the same sense when used in other writers, Vid. Euripid in\n Alcest._, \u03bc\u03b7 \u03b8\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03c7\u1fbd \u03c5\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u1fbd \u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2; _and Demosth. in Coron._ \u03b5\u03b3\u03c9\n \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u1fbd \u03c5\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c3\u03c9; _and the Latin word, that answers to it, is\n sometimes used in the same sense. Vid. Ter. in Andr._ Ego pro te\n molam. _As for the preposition_ \u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9, _that is seldom or never used,\n but it signifies a substitution of one thing, or person, in the room\n of another: Thus when Christ is said to_ give his life a ransom, \u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd for many, _in_ Matt. xx. 28. Mark x. 46. _this plainly imports\n his being substituted in their room, as appears by the frequent use\n thereof in other scriptures. See_ Matt. ii. 22. chap. v. 38. _and_\n chap. xvii. 27. Luke xi. 11. _and in several other places, Vid. Grot.\n de Satisfact. Christ. cap. 9_.\n\nFootnote 165:\n\n _See the note immediately preceeding._\n\nFootnote 166:\n\n _See Page 201-203 ante._\n\nFootnote 167:\n\n \u201cThe judicious, whether Trinitarians, or Unitarians, have always\n acknowledged an intimate connexion between the doctrine of Christ\u2019s\n true Godhead, and that of his satisfaction for sins; as both must be\n at once confessed, or denied. If he by his sufferings could satisfy\n the avenging justice of God for the sins of all believers; then he\n behoved to be more than any creature. If on the contrary, such a thing\n was not necessary, then no other end could be so important, that for\n it God should empty himself, and \u2018assuming the form of a servant,\n become obedient to the death of the cross.\u2019\n\n But the truth of Christ\u2019s satisfaction is confirmed in the word of God\n by so many testimonies, and these of the clearest kind, that those of\n another opinion, find themselves under a necessity to give every where\n to these passages an arbitrary sense; so feeble, improper, and\n far-fetched, that by such a strain of interpretation, people are in\n danger of turning from all the doctrines of the Bible and of\n pronouncing it the most uncertain of all doctrinal books, and the most\n ready to mislead. On this subject much has been written. We shall only\n observe the following things as suitable to our purpose.\n\n In the course of Christ\u2019s prophetic teaching upon earth, we find\n evident proofs, that he had appeared not only for that end, but\n chiefly for a very different purpose, namely, to suffer and to die;\n that being a saving work, and of the utmost necessity. He declared\n that he came to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. More\n than once he informed his disciples, that by a bitter and a most\n humbling kind of suffering, which hung over his head, that which was\n written concerning him, behoved to be accomplished.\n\n His circumstances and manner of acting were wholly directed to that\n end. The joyful solemnizing of his birth, by a retinue of spirits\n immortal and enthroned, was heard by good witnesses indeed, but of low\n degree, and few in number; and with some express testimonies on earth,\n during his quiet education in a remote and contemptible town, they\n were almost gone out of mind. His heavenly consecration was shown to\n John only; his glorification on the mount, only to three of his\n followers, of which he forbade them to speak till after his\n resurrection, or to make him known every where as Christ. Several\n times he commanded not to propagate the cures he had wrought. Often\n his preaching was involved and figurative, more adapted to inflame the\n _great_ against him, than to unite the _many_ in his favours. Yet his\n greatness could not be wholly unknown, and when men would have exalted\n him, he shunned it. By all these things, the judgment and the\n confidence of the people concerning him, was much more vague and\n unstable, than even concerning his austere forerunner.\u2014In one word,\n his ministry was so conducted as might best serve, not to prevent, but\n to pave the way for his farther suffering and death, while the clearer\n and more extensive spread of his doctrine, and thereby at the same\n time, the publication of his death and his glory, behoved to be the\n work of the apostles in his name.\n\n That Christ suffered and died for the good of his church, is without\n controversy; so also did the apostles. But was any of them crucified\n for us, as was Christ? To say this, would in Paul\u2019s judgment be the\n utmost absurdity. What then hath the Saviour done, which no other\n did?\u2014\u2018He was delivered for our offences.\u2019 \u2018He suffered for our sin,\n the just for the unjust; that he might bring us to God.\u2019 He \u2018died for\n our sins.\u2019 \u2018The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin.\u2019\u2014And\n so indeed, that he delivered us from sin, by taking it upon himself.\n For he who neither had nor knew sin, was of God made to be sin for us,\n that we might he the righteousness of God in him. He \u2018bare our sins in\n his own body upon the tree.\u2019 \u2018Behold, said John, the Lamb of God,\n which taketh away the sin of the world.\u2019 And how does he _take it\n away?_ By his death. For to say a lamb takes away sin, is not sense,\n if there be not an allusion to the Paschal Lamb, or to other\n sacrificed lambs, which were to be slain according to the law. \u2018Christ\n our passover is sacrificed for us.\u2019 \u2018Ye are redeemed by the precious\n blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish, and without spot.\u2019\u2014He\n put himself in our place, fulfilled for us the demands of God\u2019s holy\n law, and for us satisfied his inflexible justice. Why, pray, of all\n men, of all the saints, of all the most excellent teachers, was Christ\n only free from all moral impurity? As a Prophet, this was not\n absolutely necessary for him; but necessary it was that he, being to\n fulfil the law for others, should have no need to satisfy for his own\n sin. \u2018God sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and that\n for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteousness of the law\n might be fulfilled in us.\u2019 \u2018God sent forth his Son made under the law,\n to redeem them who were under the law.\u2019\u2014The apostle confirms this in\n the clearest manner, giving us at the same time, a notable sign of the\n remarkable _curse_ in the death of Christ. It is written, \u2018Cursed is\n every one, who continueth not in all things which are written in the\n book of the law to do them. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of\n the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every\n one who hangeth on a tree.\u2019\n\n This important doctrine is inculcated on us in many places, under the\n notions of _a purchase, a ransom, a propitiation, and a testament_; by\n which the virtue and the efficacy, of Christ\u2019s death are elucidated.\n Let it not be objected, that these phrases are borrowed from other\n things, and therefore to be understood in an improper and figurative\n sense. A figurative sense is not however, no sense at all, or without\n sense; but serves to make profound subjects more comprehensible to a\n common understanding.\n\n 1. _A Purchase._ Believers in their soul and their body are God\u2019s,\n \u2018because they are bought with a price;\u2019 they are the church of the\n Lord God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. The song unto\n the Lamb runs, \u2018Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy\n blood;\u2019 which strongly indicates, that their salvation is to be\n ascribed to the merits of his bloody death.\n\n 2. _A Ransom._ In the New Testament, the word _deliverance_ is often\n used in translating one, which properly signifies _a redemption, or\n ransom_. Thus it is written, \u2018ye were redeemed from your vain\n conversation, not by corruptible things, as silver or gold, but by the\n precious blood of Christ.\u2019 This redemption is explained by the\n forgiveness of sins. It is, therefore, his blood and death, wherewith\n he made payment, in order to procure our discharge from the debt of\n sin. He came \u2018to minister, and to give his life a ransom for\n many.\u2019\u2014\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd. Matt. xx. 28. and \u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd. 1 Tim. ii. 6.\n\n 3. _A Propitiation._ Sometimes this in the Greek is called\n \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03b3\u03b7, (conciliatio) that is, _a reconciliation_. Accordingly,\n believers are now reconciled to God by the death of his Son; by his\n cross; by the blood of his cross, and in the body of his flesh through\n death. \u2018God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself:\u2019 which is\n farther explained, \u2018not imputing their trespasses to them.\u2019\u2014But it is\n also called _a propitiation_, in the translation of \u1f31\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2,\n (expiatio) used concerning the victims which were anciently slain, as\n a typical propitiation in place of the guilty. So now Jesus Christ the\n righteous is the propitiation for our sins. For God \u2018sent his Son to\n be a propitiation for our sins.\u2019 God hath set him forth to be a\n propitiation through faith in his blood, for a demonstration of his\n righteousness, by (or rather because _of_) the forgiveness of sins.\n Therefore, \u2018the Lamb of God hath so taken away the sins of the world,\u2019\n that he took them upon himself, that he bare them, that he died in the\n place of his people.\n\n 4. _A Testament._ According to his last institution, the assignation\n of the everlasting inheritance, is called \u2018the New Testament in his\n blood, which was shed for many, for the remission of sins.\u2019 This\n signifies to us, not only that Christ had a perfect right to the\n honour of settling the inheritance, not only that his death as a\n testator was necessary to put his people in possession of it; but,\n that that inheritance had its foundation precisely in the shedding of\n his blood, in his deepest humiliation, and his violent death; as\n thereby their sins, which otherwise stood in the way of salvation,\n could be forgiven. If, instead of the _New Testament_, we rather\n choose to translate it the _New Covenant_; the allusion will be\n somewhat different, but the matter the same.\n\n This leads us to the epistle to the Hebrews, in which all these\n doctrines are ascertained to us at great length, and with invincible\n arguments. That epistle was intended to demonstrate indeed, the\n authority of Christ\u2019s instruction above all the prophets, and even\n Moses himself: but also, under propositions borrowed from the ancient\n religion, and fitted to the Hebrews, to reconcile his priestly office\n with the intention of the Levitical sacrifices, and to exalt it\n infinitely above Aaron\u2019s priesthood. Christ being a High Priest of\n unchangeable power, needed not to offer up sacrifices for his own\n sins, but having offered himself up once to God, he thereby made\n reconciliation for sin, made an end of it, opened a sure way to\n heaven, and \u2018can save unto the uttermost all who come unto the Father\n by him.\u2019 Read the 5th and the 10th chapters. Would you, on account of\n the doctrine so full of consolation, suspect this epistle, and erase\n it from the volume of holy scripture? In it, however, no doctrine\n occurs, which is not also mentioned elsewhere; and this apostolic\n epistle is surpassed by none of the rest, in sublimity of matter, in\n weight of evidence, in glorifying the grace of God in Christ, in\n strong consolation, in encouraging to the spiritual warfare, and in\n the most animating motives to holiness and perseverance.\n\n Besides, in the Saviour\u2019s satisfaction only lies the reason, why his\n suffering together with his resurrection, are every where represented\n to us as the sum and substance of the gospel. No other part of his\n history and ministration are so fully propounded, and that by all the\n Evangelists.\u2014We have already seen, that the Apostles preached, not\n only the doctrine of evangelic morality, but chiefly Christ himself,\n that is, his person, work, and two-fold state. Paul would know nothing\n among the Corinthians, \u2018but Jesus Christ and him crucified.\u2019 The cross\n of Christ was that alone in which he gloried. He reduces the knowledge\n of Christ, for the excellency of which he counted all things but loss\n and dung, to the knowledge of the power of his resurrection, and of\n the fellowship of his sufferings.\u2014In that most important conversation\n on the holy mount, between our Lord, and two of the celestial\n inhabitants, the two great teachers and reformers under the old\n dispensation, we find no more mentioned, but that it turned upon that\n decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.\u2014In the cross, and the\n other humiliations and sufferings of the Saviour comprehended under\n it, the love of God towards men, in not sparing his own Son, as also\n his wisdom and power unto salvation are displayed in a peculiar and a\n most conspicuous manner. In the cross, is the abolishing of the power\n and the fear of death. Deliverance from the dominion of sin, as also\n the glory to come, are its pleasant fruits. The plain, but most\n consolatory symbols of the grace of Jesus, in Baptism, and the Holy\n Supper, point us in like manner to his atoning _death_, with a charge\n _to shew it forth_ in particular.\n\n The medium of our acceptance and justification before God, is every\n where in the gospel said to be _faith in Christ_: and that indeed in\n opposition to, and with warning against the law, or the seeking of our\n justification by the works of the law. Now if _believing in Christ_\n signify only, to receive and to obey his doctrine concerning the\n rational grounds and duties of religion; how then is the doctrine and\n the righteousness of faith quite another thing than the demand and\n righteousness of the law whether we consider the moral law naturally,\n or as written by Moses? Nay, Moses had also taught the capital\n doctrines of rational religion, God\u2019s existence, unity, providence,\n the duties of man, &c. and that the love of God, and of our neighbour,\n is more than all sacrifices, was often inculcated under the old\n economy, and not unknown to the Jews.\u2014Or does the prohibition of\n seeking righteousness by the law, only mean the omitting of the Mosaic\n rights? But in the places quoted, and in others, the _law_ cannot\n possibly be understood in such a limited sense. Besides the\n righteousness of faith, in contradistinction to that of the law, had\n place even under the old dispensation. Further, these external\n solemnities could indeed be abolished; but they were instituted by God\n himself, and hence the observing of them did not so militate against a\n rational religion, that it in itself could make a man\n condemnable.\u2014Paul constantly teaches, that the opposition between\n faith and the law, in respect of our seeking righteousness by them,\n consists in this, that God\u2019s inflexible _law_ condemns all sinners,\n Jews and Gentiles; that by the works of the law, no flesh shall be\n justified; that through sin, the law is become weak to give life: but\n that faith acknowledges and embraces Christ, as he who fulfilled the\n righteousness of the law, was made a curse for us, and set forth to be\n a propitiation, through faith, not only in his _doctrine_, but in his\n _blood_, for a demonstration of the righteousness of God.\n\n And why else was \u2018Christ crucified unto the Jews a stumbling-block,\n and to the Greeks foolishness?\u2019 Surely, not so much on account of the\n capital truths of rational religion taught by him. The Jewish doctors,\n and the best philosophers among the Heathens, who had acknowledged\n them were honoured on that account. Nor was it because Christ,\n continuing a worthy and faithful, but an unsuccessful teacher of his\n doctrine, was unjustly accused, and shamefully put to death. The\n memory of a condemned Socrates was not held in contempt. The reason\n was purely this, that the Saviour\u2019s suffering was proclaimed as the\n only ground and cause of our reconciliation and salvation: while the\n Jews and Heathens thought to be saved by the value of their own\n virtue: and to them it was exceeding strange, and most mortifying to\n their pride, that penitently acknowledging their guilt, they behoved\n to seek life in the deep abasement of a crucified Mediator, and in his\n justifying resurrection.\n\n All our reasoning thus far makes it evident, that we must not\n understand _the sufferings of Christ for sin_, merely as if God, being\n about to announce by the gospel, grace and life to the nations, would\n previously manifest his aversion to sin, by a striking example of his\n vengeance; and for that purpose, deliver up an ambassador vested with\n extraordinary privileges, to so much sorrow and shame. Surely all\n preceding ages had already exhibited awful instances of God\u2019s fearful\n displeasure with the sins of individuals and communities, without\n deliverance from sin being ever ascribed to them. That a mean man\n among the people, that a teacher wandering about in poverty, should be\n shamefully put to death by a civil judge, was much less calculated to\n exhibit a signal and extraordinary example of divine wrath, than the\n immediate interposition of Providence, which had often, in former\n times inflicted, and still could inflict miraculous punishments on the\n most eminent persons, or on whole nations. At any rate, to manifest a\n righteous abhorrence of sin, vengeance behoved not to fall upon one\n perfectly innocent. This last would be quite absurd; unless the\n innocent person, (as holy scripture has already taught us) should with\n God\u2019s approbation, as spontaneously, as generously, substitute himself\n in our place, by bearing our sin.\u2014Accordingly, sacred scripture\n represents the sufferings of Christ, not only as a proof and\n confirmation, but as the cause of our reconciliation.\n\n We by no means exclude other advantages ascribed by Socinus to the\n Saviour\u2019s death. Beyond all doubt, he thereby confirmed his integrity\n and the truth of his mission. But, pray, was it ever heard, that a\n false prophet, in the founding of a new society, mentioned his own,\n his certain, his fast approaching, and most offensive punishment of\n death, as the intention of his ministry; and made it an article of his\n doctrine?\u2014In confirmation of his doctrine and mission, Jesus generally\n appealed to his miracles; and yet, where are the forgiveness of our\n sins and a title to life ascribed to his miracles, as they often are\n to his bloody death?\u2014For what doctrine was Jesus condemned? Not for\n the truths and prescriptions of natural reason; but because he\n declared himself to be higher far than any human prophet. (See Section\n IX.) If the celestial chorus at his birth, if the Father\u2019s voice at\n his inauguration, if his glory on the mount, had been openly perceived\n by the Jewish council and all the people; if the lightnings darted\n forth in confirmation of Moses and Elias, had caused him to be\n honoured; especially if he had satisfied their prejudices concerning\n the Messias; if, with legions of his Father\u2019s angels, he had destroyed\n the Roman government, broken that yoke, recovering and extending\n David\u2019s mighty kingdom; their infidelity would have been conquered,\n and eagerly would they have confided in him. They would have been more\n easily drawn by giving bread, or causing manna to rain, than by\n promising them his flesh and blood.\u2014A steady martyrdom was more\n necessary to the preaching of the apostles; because their doctrine in\n a great measure referred to and was built upon the truth of the\n all-important events of the Saviour\u2019s death and exaltation. In\n relation to which, as they could not be deceived, so likewise their\n sincerity behoved to be put beyond suspicion. But the Lord Jesus\n Christ had abundance of glorious means to confirm his doctrine; and if\n nothing else had been to be effectuated by it, he behoved not to have\n undergone a cursed death upon the hill of infamy; and that under the\n pretence of a legal procedure, which caused the multitude to revolt\n from him, his friends to be offended at him, and plunged his best\n followers in deep distress.\n\n We also respect the design of exhibiting in his sufferings, an example\n of love, submission to, and confidence in God. But such an extremity\n of shame was not necessary for that purpose; and his sufferings were\n accompanied with so much perturbation, vehement distress, cries and\n tears, that quite other ends were ever to be obtained by them; else he\n would not have exceeded many valiant martyrs. Besides, could any\n apostle, courageously foreseeing, and alluding to his own martyrdom in\n confirmation of the truth, and for an example to others, be able to\n say, as did Christ, \u2018whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath\n eternal life; for my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink\n indeed, &c.?\u2019 2 Tim. iv. 6. compared with John vi. 51-57.\n\n Do men in spite of the divine testimony, find reasons and scruples\n against a vicarious satisfaction; if we are not much mistaken, they\n are easy to solve. But far stronger reasons combat the persuasion,\n that the Holy Supreme Being can show himself favourable, or\n indifferent, to the voluntary violation of those laws and moral duties\n from which he himself cannot absolve a rational creature; or to speak\n in a plain and familiar manner, that God can, and also will suffer sin\n to escape with impunity.\n\n If then, (to conclude in the language of the apostle, when enlarging\n on the glory of Christ,) the Son of God, by himself purged our sins;\n how narrowly and how perversely would we limit his saving work to his\n preaching? How inconsistent is it with this, that men, according to\n the usual phrase among Christians, ascribe efficacious _merits_ to\n Christ; but in an unusual sense understand them only of his doctrine\n and his excellent character? against which sentiment, too, much could\n be objected. How evidently then is that confirmed, which we asserted,\n that Christ himself in his person and performances, is the cause and\n ground of our salvation? If the suffering and death of Christ alone\n have merited salvation for the innumerable multitude of all them who\n ever believed in him, or shall believe; if his suffering, though short\n in duration, was the satisfactory ransom, to deliver all those sinners\n from the fear of death, and from the wrath to come; then the infinite\n worth of his person and work, must surpass all understanding; then\n from that most gracious deliverance we deduce an important proof of\n his more than human, his divine excellency.\u201d\n\n DR. WYNPERSSE.\n\nFootnote 168:\n\n \u201cIn the consideration of this subject, which every Christian must deem\n most highly deserving the closet examination, our attention should be\n directed to two different classes of objectors: those who deny the\n necessity of any mediation whatever; and those who question the\n particular nature of that mediation, which has been appointed. Whilst\n the deist on the one hand ridicules the very notion of a Mediator: and\n the philosophizing Christian on the other, fashions it to his own\n hypothesis; we are called on to vindicate the word of truth from the\n injurious attacks of both; and carefully to secure it, not only\n against the open assaults of its avowed enemies, but against the more\n dangerous misrepresentations of its false or mistaken friends.\n\n The objections which are peculiar to the former, are upon this\n subject, of the same description with those which they advance against\n every other part of revelation; bearing with equal force against the\n system of natural religion, which they support, as against the\n doctrines of revealed religion, which they oppose. And indeed, this\n single circumstance, if weighed with candour and reflection; that is,\n if the deist were truly the philosopher he pretends to be; might\n suffice to convince him of his error. For the closeness of the analogy\n between the works of nature, and the word of the gospel, being found\n to be such, that every blow which is aimed at the one, rebounds with\n undiminished force against the other: the conviction of their common\n origin must be the inference of unbiassed understanding.\n\n Thus, when in the outset of his argument, the deist tells us, that as\n obedience must be the object of God\u2019s approbation, and disobedience\n the ground of his displeasure, it must follow by natural consequence,\n that when men have transgressed the divine commands, repentance and\n amendment of life will place them in the same situation as if they had\n never offended:\u2014he does not recollect, that actual experience of the\n course of nature directly contradicts the assertion; and that, in the\n common occurrences of life, the man who by intemperance and\n voluptuousness, has injured his character, his fortune, and his\n health, does not find himself instantly restored to the full enjoyment\n of these blessings on repenting of his past misconduct, and\n determining on future amendment. Now, if the attributes of the Deity\n demand, that the punishment should not outlive the crime, on what\n ground shall we justify this temporal dispensation? The difference in\n _degree_, cannot affect the question in the least. It matters not,\n whether the punishment be of long or short duration; whether in this\n world, or in the next. If the justice or the goodness of God, require\n that punishment should not be inflicted when repentance has taken\n place; it must be a violation of those attributes to permit any\n punishment whatever, the most slight, or the most transient. Nor will\n it avail to say, that the evils of _this life_ attendant upon vice,\n are the effects of an established constitution, and follow in the way\n of natural consequence. Is not that established constitution itself,\n the effect of the divine decree? And are not its several operations as\n much the appointment of its Almighty framer, as if they had\n individually flowed from his immediate direction? But besides, what\n reason have we to suppose that God\u2019s treatment of us in a future\n state, will not be of the same nature as we find it in this; according\n to established rules, and in the way of natural consequence? Many\n circumstances might be urged on the contrary, to evince the likelihood\n that it will. But this is not necessary to our present purpose. It is\n sufficient, that the deist cannot _prove_ that it will _not_. Our\n experience of the present state of things evinces, that indemnity is\n not the consequence of repentance here: can he adduce a\n counter-experience to show, that it will hereafter? The justice and\n goodness of God are not then _necessarily_ concerned, in virtue of the\n sinner\u2019s repentance, to remove all evil consequences upon sin in the\n next life, or else the arrangement of events in this, has not been\n regulated by the dictates of justice and goodness. If the deist admits\n the latter, what becomes of his natural religion?\n\n Now let us inquire, whether the conclusions of abstract reasoning will\n coincide with the deductions of experience. If obedience be at all\n times our duty, in what way can present repentance release us from the\n punishment of former transgressions? Can repentance annihilate what is\n past? Or can we do more by present obedience, than acquit ourselves of\n present obligation? Or, does the contrition we experience, added to\n the positive duties we discharge, constitute a surplusage of merit,\n which may be transferred to the reduction of our former demerit? And\n is the justification of the philosopher, who is too enlightened to be\n a Christian, to be built, after all, upon the absurdities of\n supererogation? \u2018We may as well affirm,\u2019 says a learned Divine, \u2018that\n our former obedience atones for our present sins, as that our present\n obedience makes amends for antecedent transgressions.\u2019 And it is\n surely with a peculiar ill grace, that this sufficiency of repentance\n is urged by those, who deny the _possible_ efficacy of Christ\u2019s\n mediation; since the ground on which they deny the latter, equally\n serves for the rejection of the former: the _necessary connexion_\n between the merits of one being, and the acquittal of another, not\n being less conceivable, than that which is conceived to subsist\n between obedience at one time, and the forgiveness of disobedience at\n another.\n\n Since then, upon the whole, experience (as far as it extends) goes to\n prove the natural inefficacy of repentance to remove the effects of\n past transgressions; and the abstract reason of the thing, can furnish\n no link, whereby to connect present obedience with forgiveness of\n former sins: it follows, that however the contemplation of God\u2019s\n infinite goodness and love, might excite some faint hope, that mercy\n would be extended to the sincerely penitent; the animating _certainty_\n of this momentous truth, without which the religious sense can have no\n place, can be derived from the express communication of the Deity\n alone.\n\n But it is yet urged by those, who would measure the proceedings of\n divine wisdom by the standard of their own reason; that, admitting the\n necessity of a Revelation on this subject, it had been sufficient for\n the Deity to have made known to man his benevolent intention; and that\n the circuitous apparatus of the scheme of redemption must have been\n superfluous, for the purpose of rescuing the world from the terrors\n and dominion of sin; when this might have been effected in a way\n infinitely more simple and intelligible, and better calculated to\n excite our gratitude and love, merely by proclaiming to mankind a free\n pardon, and perfect indemnity, on condition of repentance and\n amendment.\n\n To the disputer, who would thus prescribe to God the mode by which he\n may best conduct his creatures to happiness, we might as before reply,\n by the application of his own argument to the course of ordinary\n events: and we might demand of him to inform us, wherefore the Deity\n should have left the sustenance of life, depending on the tedious\n process of human labour and contrivance, in rearing from a small seed,\n and conducting to the perfection fitting it for the use of man, the\n necessary article of nourishment; when the end might have been at once\n accomplished by its instantaneous production. And will he contend that\n bread has not been ordained for the support of man; because that,\n instead of the present circuitous mode of its production, it might\n have been rained down from heaven, like the manna in the wilderness?\n On grounds such as these, the philosopher (as he wishes to be called)\n may be safely allowed to object to the notion of forgiveness by a\n Mediator.\n\n With respect to every such objection as this, it may be well, once for\n all, to make this general observation. We find, from the whole course\n of nature, that God governs the world, not by independent acts, but by\n connected system. The instruments which he employs in the ordinary\n works of his Providence, are not physically necessary to his\n operations. He might have acted without them, if he pleased. \u2018He\n might, for instance, have created all men, without the intervention of\n parents: but where then had been the beneficial connexion between\n parents and children; and the numerous advantages resulting to human\n society from such connexion?\u2019 The difficulty lies here: the _uses_\n arising from the _connexions_ of God\u2019s acts may be various; and such\n are the _pregnancies_ of his works, that a _single act_ may answer a\n prodigious variety of purposes. Of the several purposes we are, for\n the most part, ignorant: and from this ignorance are derived most of\n our weak objections against the ways of his Providence; whilst we\n foolishly presume, that, like human agents, he has but one end in\n view.\n\n This observation we shall find of material use in our examination of\n the remaining arguments adduced by the deist on the present subject.\n And there is none to which it more forcibly applies than to that by\n which he endeavours to prove the notion of a Mediator to be\n inconsistent with the _divine immutability_. It is either, he affirms,\n agreeable to the will of God to grant salvation on repentance, and\n then he _will_ grant it without a Mediator: or it is not agreeable to\n his will, and then a Mediator can be of no avail, unless we admit the\n mutability of the divine decrees.\n\n But the objector is not, perhaps, aware how far this reasoning will\n extend. Let us try it in the case of prayer. All such things as are\n agreeable to the will of God must be accomplished, whether we pray or\n not; and therefore our prayers are useless, unless they be supposed to\n have a power of altering his will. And indeed, with equal\n conclusiveness it might be proved that repentance itself must be\n unnecessary. For if it be fit that our sins should be forgiven, God\n will forgive us without repentance: and if it be unfit, repentance can\n be of no avail.\n\n The error in all these conclusions is the same, it consists in\n mistaking a conditional for an absolute decree; and in supposing God\n to ordain an end unalterably, without any concern as to the\n intermediate steps, whereby that end is to be accomplished. Whereas\n the _manner_ is sometimes as necessary as the _act_ proposed: so that\n if not done in that particular way, it would not have been done at\n all. Of this observation, abundant illustration may be derived, as\n well from natural as from revealed religion. \u2018Thus we know from\n natural religion, that it is agreeable to the will of God, that the\n distresses of mankind should be relieved: and yet we see the\n destitute, from a wise constitution of Providence, left to the\n precarious benevolence of their fellow-men; and if not relieved by\n _them_, they are not relieved _at all_. In like manner, in Revelation,\n in the case of Naaman the Syrian, we find that God was willing he\n should be healed of his leprosy; but yet he was not willing that it\n should be done, except in _one particular manner_. Abana and Pharpar\n were as famous as any of the rivers of Israel. Could he not wash in\n them, and be clean? Certainly he might, if the design of God had been\n no more than to heal him. Or it might have been done without any\n washing at all. But the healing was not the only design of God, nor\n the most important. The _manner_ of the cure was of more consequence\n in the moral design of God, than the _cure_ itself: the effect being\n produced, for the sake of manifesting to the whole kingdom of Syria,\n the great power of the God of Israel, by which the cure was\n performed.\u2019 And in like manner, though God willed that the penitent\n sinner should receive forgiveness; we may see good reason why,\n agreeably to his usual proceeding, he might will it to be granted in\n one particular manner only, through the intervention of a Mediator.\n\n Although in the present stage of the subject, in which we are\n concerned with the objections of the DEIST, the argument should be\n confined to the deductions of natural reason; yet I have added this\n instance from Revelation, because, strange to say, some who assume the\n name of Christians, and profess not altogether to discard the written\n word of Revelation, adept the very principle which we have just\n examined. For what are the doctrines of that description of\n Christians, in the sister kingdom,[169] who glory in having brought\n down the high things of God to the level of man\u2019s understanding? That\n Christ was a person sent into the world to promulgate the will of God:\n to communicate new lights on the subject of religious duties: by his\n life to set an example of perfect obedience: by his death to manifest\n his sincerity: and by his resurrection to convince us of the great\n truth which he had been commissioned to teach, our rising again to\n future life. This, say they, is the sum and substance of Christianity.\n It furnishes a purer morality, and a more operative enforcement: its\n morality more pure, as built on juster notions of the divine nature:\n and its enforcement more operative, as founded on a _certainty_ of a\n state of retribution. And is then Christianity nothing but a new and\n more formal promulgation of the religion of nature? Is the death of\n Christ but an attestation of his truth? And are we, after all, left to\n our own merit for acceptance: and obliged to trust for our salvation\n to the perfection of our obedience? Then indeed, has the great Author\n of our religion in vain submitted to the agonies of the cross; if\n after having given to mankind a law, which leaves them less excusable\n in their transgressions, he has left them to be judged by the rigour\n of that law, and to stand or fall by their own personal deserts.\n\n It is said, indeed, that as by this new dispensation, the certainty of\n pardon on repentance has been made known, mankind has been informed of\n all that is essential in the doctrine of mediation. But granting that\n no more was intended to be conveyed, than the sufficiency of\n repentance; yet it remains to be considered _in what way_ that\n repentance was likely to be brought about. Was the bare declaration\n that God would forgive the repentant sinner, sufficient to ensure his\n amendment? Or was it not rather calculated to render him easy under\n guilt, from the facility of reconciliation? What was there to alarm,\n to rouse the sinner from the apathy of habitual transgression? What\n was there to make that impression which the nature of God\u2019s moral\n government demands? Shall we say that the grateful sense of divine\n mercy would be sufficient; and that the generous feelings of our\n nature, awakened by the supreme goodness, would have secured our\n obedience? that is, shall we say, that the love of virtue and of right\n would have maintained man in his allegiance? And have we not then had\n abundant experience of what man can do, when left to his own\n exertions, to be cured of such vain and idle fancies? What is the\n history of man, from the creation to the time of Christ, but a\n continued trial of his natural strength? And what has been the _moral_\n of that history, but that man is strong, only as he feels himself\n weak? strong, only as he feels that his nature is corrupt, and from a\n consciousness of that corruption, is led to place his whole reliance\n upon God? What is the description which the apostle of the Gentiles\n has left us, of the state of the world, at the coming of our\n Saviour?\u2014_being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication,\n wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate,\n deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful,\n proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,\n without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection,\n implacable, unmerciful\u2014who, knowing the judgment of God, that they\n which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same,\n but have pleasure in them that do them_.\n\n Here were the fruits of that natural goodness of the human heart,\n which is the favorite theme and fundamental principle with that class\n of Christians, with whom we are at present concerned. And have we not\n then had full experiment of our natural powers? And shall we yet have\n the madness to fly back to our own sufficiency, and our own merits,\n and to turn away from that gracious support, which is offered to us\n through the mediation of Christ? No: lost as men were, at the time\n Christ appeared, to all sense of true religion: lost as they must be\n to it, at all times, when left to a proud confidence in their own\n sufficiency: nothing short of a strong and salutary terror could\n awaken them to virtue. Without some striking expression of God\u2019s\n abhorrence of sin, which might work powerfully on the imagination and\n the heart, what could prove a sufficient counteraction to the violent\n impulse of natural passions? what, to the entailed depravation, which\n the history of man, no less than the voice of Revelation, pronounces\n to have infected the whole human race? Besides, without a full and\n adequate sense of guilt, the very notion of forgiveness, as it relates\n to us, is unintelligible. We can have no idea of forgiveness, unless\n conscious of something to be forgiven. Ignorant of our forgiveness, we\n remain ignorant of that goodness which confers it. And thus, without\n some proof of God\u2019s hatred for sin, we remain unacquainted with the\n greatness of his love.\n\n The simple promulgation then, of forgiveness on repentance, could not\n answer the purpose. Merely to _know_ the condition, could avail\n nothing. An _inducement_ of sufficient force to ensure its\n _fulfilment_ was essential. The system of sufficiency had been fully\n tried, to satisfy mankind of its folly. It was now time to introduce a\n new system, the system of _humility_. And for this purpose, what\n expedient could have been devised more suitable than that which has\n been adopted?\u2014the sacrifice of the Son of God for the sins of men:\n proclaiming to the world, by the greatness of the ransom, the\n immensity of the guilt: and thence, at the same time evincing, in the\n most fearful manner, God\u2019s utter abhorrence of sin, in requiring such\n expiation; and the infinity of his love, in appointing it.\n\n To this expedient for man\u2019s salvation, though it be the clear and\n express language of Scripture, I have as yet sought no support from\n the authority of Scripture itself. Having hitherto had to contend with\n the deist, who denies all Revelation; and the pretended Christian, who\n rationalizing away its substance, finds it a mere moral system, and\n can discover in it no trace of a Redeemer: to urge the declarations of\n Scripture, as to the particular nature of redemption, would be to no\n purpose. Its authority disclaimed by the one, and evaded by the other,\n each becomes unassailable on any ground, but that which he has chosen\n for himself, the ground of general reason.\n\n But, we come now to consider the objections of a class of Christians\n who, as they profess to derive their arguments from the language and\n meaning of Scripture, will enable us to try the subject of our\n discussion by the only true standard, the word of Revelation. And\n indeed, it were most sincerely to be wished, that the doctrines of\n Scripture were at all times collected purely from the Scripture\n itself: and that preconceived notions and arbitrary theories were not\n first to be formed, and then the Scripture pressed into the service of\n each fanciful, dogma. If God has vouchsafed a Revelation, has he not\n thereby imposed a duty of submitting our understandings to its perfect\n wisdom? Shall weak, shortsighted man presume to say, \u2018If I find the\n discoveries of Revelation correspond to my notions of what is right\n and fit, I will admit them: but if they do not, I am sure they cannot\n be the genuine sense of Scripture: and I am sure of it, on this\n principle, that the wisdom of God cannot disagree with itself?\u2019 That\n is, to express it truly, that the wisdom of God cannot but agree with\n what this judge of the actions of the Almighty deems it wise for him\n to do. The language of Scripture must then, by every possible\n refinement, be made to surrender its fair and natural meaning, to this\n predetermination of its necessary import. But the word of revelation\n being thus pared down to the puny dimensions of human reason, how\n differs the Christian from the deist? The only difference is this:\n that whilst the one denies that God hath given us a Revelation; the\n other, compelled by evidence to receive it, endeavours to render it of\n no effect. But in both there is the same self-sufficiency, the same\n pride of understanding that would erect itself on the ground of human\n reason, and that disdains to accept the divine favour on any\n conditions but its own. In both, in short, the very characteristic of\n a Christian spirit is wanting\u2014HUMILITY. For in what consists the\n entire of Christianity, but in this; that feeling an utter incapacity\n to work out our own salvation, we submit our whole-selves, our hearts,\n and our understandings, to the divine disposal; and relying on God\u2019s\n gracious assistance, ensured to our honest endeavours to obtain it,\n through the Mediation of Christ Jesus, we look up to him, and to him\n alone, for safety? Nay, what is the very _notion_ of religion, but\n this humble reliance upon God? Take this away, and we become a race of\n independent beings, claiming as a debt the reward of our good works; a\n sort of contracting party with the Almighty, contributing nought to\n his glory, but anxious to maintain our own independence, and our own\n rights. And is it not to subdue this rebellious spirit, which is\n necessarily at war with virtue and with God, that Christianity has\n been introduced? Does not every page of revelation, peremptorily\n pronounce this; and yet shall we exercise this spirit, even upon\n Christianity itself? Assuredly if we do; if, on the contrary, our\n pride of understanding, and self-sufficiency of reason, are not made\n to prostrate themselves before the awfully mysterious truths of\n revelation; if we do not bring down the rebellious spirit of our\n nature, to confess that the _wisdom of man_ is but _foolishness with\n God_; we may bear the name of Christians, but we want the essence of\n Christianity.\n\n These observations, though they apply in their full extent, only to\n those who reduce Christianity to a system purely rational; yet are, in\n a certain degree applicable to the description of Christians, whose\n notion of redemption we now come to consider. For what but a\n preconceived theory, to which Scripture had been compelled to yield\n its obvious and genuine signification, could ever have led to the\n opinion, that in the death of Christ there was _no expiation for sin_;\n that the word _sacrifice_ has been used by the writers of the New\n Testament merely in a figurative sense; and that the whole doctrine of\n the redemption amounts but to this, \u2018that God, willing to pardon\n repentant sinners, and at the same time willing to do it, only in that\n way, which would best promote the cause of virtue, appointed that\n Jesus Christ should come into the world; and that _he_, having taught\n the pure doctrines of the gospel; having passed a life of exemplary\n virtue; having endured many sufferings, and finally death itself, to\n prove his truth, and perfect his obedience; and having risen again, to\n manifest the certainty of a future state; has not only, by his example\n proposed to mankind a pattern for imitation; but has, by the merits of\n his obedience, obtained, through his intercession, as a reward, a\n kingdom or government over the world, whereby he is enabled to bestow\n pardon and final happiness, upon all who will accept them on the terms\n of sincere repentance.\u2019 That is, in other words, we receive salvation\n through a Mediator: the mediation conducted through intercession: and\n that intercession successful in recompense of the meritorious\n obedience of our Redeemer.\n\n Here, indeed, we find the notion of redemption admitted: but in\n setting up, for this purpose, the doctrine of _pure intercession_, in\n opposition to that of _atonement_, we shall perhaps discover, when\n properly examined, some small tincture of that mode of reasoning,\n which, as we have seen, has led the modern Socinian to contend against\n the idea of redemption at large; and the deist, against that of\n revelation itself.\n\n For the present, let us confine our attention to the _objections_\n which the patrons of this new system bring against the principle of\n atonement, as set forth in the doctrines of that church to which we\n more immediately belong. As for those which are founded in views of\n general reason, a little reflection will convince us, that there is\n not any, which can be alleged against the latter, that may not be\n urged with equal force, against the former: not a single difficulty\n with which it is attempted to encumber the one, that does not equally\n embarrass the other. This having been evinced, we shall then see how\n little reason there was for relinquishing the plain and natural\n meaning of scripture; and for opening the door to a latitude of\n interpretation, in which, it is but too much the fashion to indulge at\n the present day, and which if persevered in, must render the word of\n God a nullity.\n\n The first, and most important of the objections we have now to\n consider, is that which represents the doctrine of atonement, as\n founded on the _divine implacability_\u2014inasmuch as it supposes, that to\n appease the rigid justice of God, it was requisite that punishment\n should be inflicted; and that consequently the sinner _could_ not by\n any means have been released, had not Christ suffered in his stead.\n Were this a faithful statement of the doctrine of atonement, there had\n indeed been just ground for the objection. But that this is not the\n fair representation of candid truth, let the objector feel, by the\n application of the same mode of reasoning, to the system which he\n upholds. If it was necessary to the forgiveness of man, that Christ\n should suffer; and through the merits of his obedience, and as the\n fruit of his intercession, obtain the power of granting that\n forgiveness; does it not follow, that had not Christ thus suffered and\n interceded, we could not have been forgiven? And has _he_ not then, as\n it were, taken us out of the hands of a severe and strict judge; and\n is it not to him alone that we owe our pardon? Here the argument is\n exactly parallel, and the objection of implacability equally applies.\n Now what is the answer? \u2018That although it is through the merits and\n intercession of Christ that we are forgiven; yet these were not the\n _procuring cause_, but the _means_, by which God originally disposed\n to forgive, thought it right to bestow his pardon.\u2019 Let then the word\n _intercession_ be changed for _sacrifice_, and see whether the answer\n be not equally conclusive.\n\n The sacrifice of Christ was never deemed by any who did not wish to\n calumniate the doctrine of atonement, to have _made_ God placable, but\n merely viewed as the _means_ appointed by divine wisdom, by which to\n bestow forgiveness. And agreeably to this, do we not find this\n sacrifice every where spoken of, as ordained by God himself?\u2014_God so\n loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever\n believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life_\u2014and\n _herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent\n his Son to be the propitiation for our sins_\u2014and again we are told,\n that _we are redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb\n without blemish, and without spot\u2014-who verily was foreordained before\n the foundation of the world_\u2014and again, that Christ is _the Lamb slain\n from the foundation of the world_. Since then, the notion of the\n efficiency of the sacrifice of Christ, contained in the doctrine of\n atonement, stands precisely on the same foundation with that of pure\n intercession\u2014merely as the _means_ whereby God has thought fit to\n grant his favour and gracious aid to repentant sinners, and to fulfil\n that merciful intention, which he had at all times entertained towards\n his fallen creatures: and since by the same sort of representation,\n the charge of implacability in the Divine Being, is as applicable to\n the one scheme as to the other; that is, since it is a calumny most\n foully cast upon both: we may estimate with what candour this has been\n made by those who hold the one doctrine the fundamental ground of\n their objections against the other. For, on the ground of the\n expression of God\u2019s unbounded love to his creatures every where\n through Scripture, and of his several declarations that he forgave\n them _freely_, it is, that they principally contend, that the notion\n of expiation by the sacrifice of Christ cannot be the genuine doctrine\n of the New Testament.\n\n But still it is demanded, \u2018in what way can the death of Christ,\n considered as a sacrifice of expiation, be conceived to operate to the\n remission of sins, unless by the appeasing a Being, who otherwise\n would not have forgiven us?\u2019\u2014To this the answer of the Christian is,\n \u2018I know not, nor does it concern me to know _in what manner_ the\n sacrifice of Christ is connected with the forgiveness of sins; it is\n enough, that this is declared by God to be the medium through which my\n salvation is effected. I pretend not to dive into the counsels of the\n Almighty. I submit to his wisdom: and I will not reject his grace,\n because his mode of vouchsafing it is not within my comprehension.\u2019\n But now let us try the doctrine of pure intercession by this same\n objection. It has been asked, how can the sufferings of one Being be\n conceived to have any connexion with the forgiveness of another. Let\n us likewise inquire, how the meritorious obedience of one Being, can\n be conceived to have any connexion with the pardon of the\n transgressions of another: or whether the prayers of a righteous Being\n in behalf of a wicked person, can be imagined to have more weight in\n obtaining forgiveness for the transgressor, than the same\n supplication, seconded by the offering up of life itself, to procure\n that forgiveness? The fact is, the want of discoverable connexion has\n nothing to do with either. Neither the sacrifice nor the intercession\n has, as far as we can comprehend, any _efficacy_ whatever. All that we\n know, or can know of the one or of the other is, that it has been\n appointed as the means, by which God has determined to act with\n respect to man. So that to object to the one, because the mode of\n operation is unknown, is not only giving up the other, but the very\n notion of a Mediator; and if followed on, cannot fail to lead to pure\n deism, and perhaps may not stop even there.\n\n Thus we have seen, to what the general objections against the doctrine\n of atonement amount. The charges of _divine implacability_, and of\n _inefficacious means_, we have found to bear with as little force\n against this, as against the doctrine which is attempted to be\n substituted in its room.\n\n We come now to the objections which are drawn from the immediate\n language of scripture, in those passages in which the nature of our\n redemption is described. And first, it is asserted, that it is no\n where said in scripture, that God is reconciled _to us_ by Christ\u2019s\n death, but that we are every where said to be reconciled _to God_. Now\n in this objection, which clearly lays the whole stress upon _our\n obedience_, we discover the secret spring of this entire system, which\n is set up in opposition to the scheme of atonement: we see that\n reluctance to part with the proud feeling of merit, with which the\n principle of redemption by the sacrifice of Christ is openly at war:\n and consequently we see the essential difference there is between the\n two doctrines at present under consideration; and the necessity there\n exists for separating them by the clearest marks of distinction. But\n to return to the objection that has been made, it very fortunately\n happens, that we have the meaning of the words in their scripture use,\n defined by no less an authority than that of our Saviour himself\u2014_If\n thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy\n brother hath aught against thee, leave there thy gift before the\n altar, and go thy way\u2014first be reconciled to thy brother, and then\n come and offer thy gift_. Now, from this plain instance, in which the\n person _offending_ is expressly described, as the party to _be\n reconciled to_ him who had been _offended_, by agreeing to his terms\n of accommodation, and thereby making his peace with him; it manifestly\n appears, in what sense this expression is to be understood in the\n language of the New Testament. The very words then produced for the\n purpose of showing that there was no displeasure on the part of God,\n which it was necessary by some means to avert, prove the direct\n contrary: and our _being reconciled to God_, evidently does not mean,\n our giving up our sins, and thereby laying aside _our_ enmity to God,\n (in which sense the objection supposes it to be taken) but the turning\n away _his_ displeasure, whereby we are enabled to regain his favour.\n And indeed it were strange, had it not meant this. What! are we to\n suppose the God of the Christian, like the deity of the Epicurean, to\n look on with indifference upon the actions of this life, and not to be\n offended at the sinner? The displeasure of God, it is to be\n remembered, is not like man\u2019s displeasure, a resentment or passion,\n but a judicial disapprobation: which if we abstract from our notion of\n God, we must cease to view him as the moral governor of the world. And\n it is from the want of this distinction, which is so highly necessary;\n and the consequent fear of degrading the Deity, by attributing to him\n what might appear to be the weakness of passion; that they, who trust\n to reason more than to scripture, have been withheld from admitting\n any principle that implied displeasure on the part of God. Had they\n attended but a little to the plain language of scripture, they might\n have rectified their mistake. They would there have found the wrath of\n God against the disobedient, spoken of in almost every page. They\n would have found also a case which is exactly in point to the main\n argument before us; in which there is described, not only the wrath of\n God, but the turning away of his displeasure by the mode of sacrifice.\n The case is that of the three friends of Job,\u2014in which God expressly\n says, that his _wrath is kindled against the friends of Job, because\n they had not spoken of him the thing that was right_; and at the same\n time directs them to offer up a sacrifice, as the way of averting his\n anger.\n\n But then it is urged, that God is every where spoken of as a being of\n infinite love. True; and the whole difficulty arises from building on\n partial texts. When men perpetually talk of God\u2019s justice, as being\n necessarily modified by his goodness, they seem to forget that it is\n no less the language of scripture, and of reason, that his goodness\n should be modified by his justice. Our error on this subject proceeds\n from our own narrow views, which compel us to consider the attributes\n of the Supreme Being, as so many distinct qualities, when we should\n conceive of them as inseparably blended together; and his _whole\n nature_ as _one great impulse_ to what _is best_.\n\n As to God\u2019s displeasure against sinners, there can be then upon the\n whole no reasonable ground of doubt. And against the doctrine of\n atonement, no difficulty can arise from the scripture phrase of men\n being _reconciled to God_: since, as we have seen, that directly\n implies the turning away the displeasure of God, so as to be again\n restored to his favour and protection.\n\n But, though all this must be admitted by those who will not shut their\n eyes against reason and scripture; yet still it is contended, that the\n death of Christ cannot be considered as a _propitiatory sacrifice_.\n Now, when we find him described as _the Lamb of God which taketh away\n the sins of the world_; when we are told, that _Christ hath given\n himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God_; and that he\n _needed not, like the high-priests under the law, to offer up\n sacrifice daily, first for his own sins, and then for the people\u2019s;\n for that this he did once, when he offered up himself_; when he is\n expressly asserted to be the _propitiation for our sins_; and God is\n said to have _loved us_, and to have _sent his Son to be the\n propitiation for our sins_; when Isaiah describes _his soul as made an\n offering for sin_; when it is said that _God spared not his own Son,\n but delivered him up for us all_; and that _by him we have received\n the atonement_; when these, and many other such passages are to be\n found; when every expression referring to the death of Christ,\n evidently indicates the notion of a sacrifice of atonement and\n propitiation; when this sacrifice is particularly represented, as of\n the nature of a _sin-offering_; which was a species of sacrifice\n \u2018prescribed to be offered upon the commission of an offence, after\n which the offending person was considered as if he had never sinned;\u2019\n it may well appear surprising on what ground it can be questioned,\n that the death of Christ is pronounced in scripture to have been a\n sacrifice of atonement and expiation for the sins of men.\n\n It is asserted, that the several passages which seem to speak this\n language, contain nothing more than _figurative allusions_: that all\n that is intended is, that Christ laid down his life _for_, that is,\n _on account of_ mankind: and that there being circumstances of\n resemblance between this event and the sacrifices of the law, terms\n were borrowed from the latter, to express the former in a manner more\n lively and impressive. And as a proof that the application of these\n terms is but figurative, it is contended, 1st. That the death of\n Christ did not correspond _literally_ and exactly, to the ceremonies\n of the Mosaic sacrifice: 2dly. That being in different places compared\n to different kinds of sacrifices, to _all_ of which it could not\n possibly correspond, it cannot be considered as exactly of the nature\n of _any_: and lastly, that there was no such thing as a sacrifice of\n _propitiation_ or _expiation of sin_ under the Mosaic dispensation at\n all; this notion having been entirely of Heathen origin.\n\n As to the two first arguments, they deserve but little consideration.\n The want of an exact similitude to the precise form of the Mosaic\n sacrifice, is but a slender objection. It might as well be said, that\n because Christ was not of the species of animal, which had usually\n been offered up; or because he was not slain in the same manner; or\n because he was not offered by the high-priest, there could have been\n no sacrifice. But this is manifest trifling. If the formal notion of a\n sacrifice for sin, that is, a life offered up in expiation be adhered\n to, nothing more can be required to constitute it a sacrifice, except\n by those who mean to cavil, not to discover truth.\n\n Again, as to the second argument, which from the comparison of\n Christ\u2019s death, to the _different_ kinds of sacrifices, would infer\n that it was not of the nature of _any_, it may be replied, that it\n will more reasonably follow, that it was of the nature of _all_.\n Resembling that of the _Passover_, inasmuch as by it we were delivered\n from an evil yet greater than that of Egyptian bondage; partaking the\n nature of the _sin offering_, as being accepted in expiation of\n transgression; and similar to the institution of the _scape-goat_, as\n bearing the accumulated sins of all: may we not reasonably suppose\n that this one great sacrifice contained the full import and completion\n of the whole sacrificial system? And that so far from being spoken of\n in figure, as bearing some resemblance to the sacrifices of the law,\n _they_ were on the contrary, as the apostle expressly tells us, but\n figures, or faint and partial representations of this stupendous\n sacrifice which had been ordained from the beginning? And besides, it\n is to be remarked in general, with respect to the figurative\n application of the sacrificial terms to the death of Christ; that the\n striking resemblance between that and the sacrifices of the law, which\n is assigned as the reason of such application, would have produced\n just the contrary effect upon the sacred writers; since they must have\n been aware that the constant use of such expressions, aided by the\n strength of the resemblance, must have laid a foundation for error, in\n that which constitutes the main doctrine of the Christian faith. Being\n addressed to a people whose religion was entirely sacrificial, in what\n but the obvious and literal sense, could the sacrificial\n representation of the death of Christ have been understood?\n\n We come now to the third and principal objection, which is built upon\n the assertion, that no sacrifices of _atonement_ (in the sense in\n which we apply this term to the death of Christ) had existence under\n the Mosaic law: such as were called by that name having had an\n entirely different import. Now that certain offerings under this\n denomination, related to _things_, and were employed for the purpose\n of purification, so as to render them fit instruments of the\n ceremonial worship, must undoubtedly be admitted. That others were\n again appointed to relieve _persons_ from _ceremonial_ incapacities,\n so as to restore them to the privilege of joining in the services of\n the temple, is equally true. But that there were others of a nature\n strictly propitiatory, and ordained to avert the displeasure of God\n from the transgressor, not only of the ceremonial, but, in some cases,\n even of the _moral_ law, will appear manifest upon a very slight\n examination. Thus we find it decreed, that _if a soul sin and commit a\n trespass against the Lord, and lie unto his neighbour in that which\n was delivered to him to keep\u2014or have found that which was lost, and\n lieth concerning it, and_ SWEARETH FALSELY, _then, because he hath\n sinned in this, he shall not only make restitution to his\n neighbour\u2014but he shall bring his trespass-offering unto the Lord, a\n ram without blemish out of the flock; and the priest shall make an_\n ATONEMENT _for him before the Lord, and it shall be_ FORGIVEN HIM. And\n again in a case of criminal connexion with a bond-maid who was\n betrothed, the offender is ordered to _bring his trespass-offering,\n and the priest is to make_ ATONEMENT _for him with the\n trespass-offering, for the sin which he hath done; and the sin which\n he hath done shall be_ FORGIVEN _him_. And in the case of all offences\n which fell not under the description of _presumptuous_, it is manifest\n from the slightest inspection of the book of Leviticus, that the\n atonement prescribed, was appointed as the means whereby God might be\n _propitiated_, or _reconciled to the offender_.\n\n Again, as to the _vicarious_ import of the Mosaic sacrifice; or, in\n other words, its expressing an acknowledgment of what the sinner had\n deserved; this not only seems directly set forth in the account of the\n first offering in Leviticus, where it is said of the person who\n brought a free-will offering, _he shall lay his hand upon the head of\n the burnt-offering, and it shall be_ ACCEPTED FOR _him to make\n atonement for him_: but the ceremony of the scape-goat on the day of\n expiation, appears to place this matter beyond doubt. On this head,\n however, as not being _necessary_ to my argument, I shall not at\n present enlarge.\n\n That expiatory sacrifice (in the strict and proper sense of the word)\n was a part of the Mosaic institution, there remains then, I trust, no\n sufficient reason to deny. That it existed in like manner amongst the\n Arabians, in the time of Job, we have already seen. And that its\n universal prevalence in the Heathen world, though corrupted and\n disfigured by idolatrous practices, was the result of an original\n divine appointment, every candid inquirer will find little reason to\n doubt. But be this as it may, it must be admitted, that _propitiatory\n sacrifices_ not only existed through the whole Gentile world, but had\n place under the law of Moses. The argument then, which from the\n non-existence of such sacrifices amongst the Jews, would deny the term\n when applied to the death of Christ, to indicate such sacrifice,\n necessarily falls to the ground.\n\n But, in fact, they who deny the sacrifice of Christ to be a real and\n proper sacrifice for sin, must, if they are consistent, deny that _any\n such_ sacrifice ever did exist, by divine appointment. For on what\n principle do they deny the former, but this?\u2014that the sufferings and\n death of Christ, for the sins and salvation of men, can make no change\n in God: cannot render him more ready to forgive, more benevolent than\n he is in his own nature; and consequently can have no power to avert\n from the offender the punishment of his transgression. Now, on the\n same principle, _every_ sacrifice for the expiation of sin, must be\n impossible. And this explains the true cause why these persons will\n not admit the language of the New Testament, clear and express as it\n is, to signify a real and proper sacrifice for sin: and why they feel\n it necessary to explain away the equally clear and express description\n of that species of sacrifice in the old. Setting out with a\n preconceived erroneous notion of its nature, and one which involves a\n manifest contradiction; they hold themselves justified in rejecting\n every acceptation of scripture which supports it. But, had they more\n accurately examined the true import of the term in scripture use, they\n would have perceived no such contradiction, nor would they have found\n themselves compelled to refine away by strained and unnatural\n interpretations, the clear and obvious meaning of the sacred text.\n They would have seen, that a sacrifice for sin, in scripture language,\n implies solely this, \u2018a sacrifice wisely and graciously _appointed_ by\n God, the moral governor of the world, to expiate the _guilt_ of sin in\n such a manner as to avert the _punishment_ of it from the offender.\u2019\n To ask _why_ God should have appointed this particular mode, or in\n _what way_ it can avert the punishment of sin, is to take us back to\n the general point at issue with the deist, which has been already\n discussed. With the Christian, who admits redemption under _any_\n modification, such matters cannot be subjects of inquiry.\n\n But even to our imperfect apprehension, some circumstances of natural\n connexion and fitness may be pointed out. The whole may be considered\n as a sensible and striking representation of a punishment, which the\n sinner was conscious he deserved from God\u2019s justice: and then, on the\n part of God, it becomes a public declaration of his _holy displeasure_\n against sin, and of his _merciful compassion_ for the sinner; and on\n the part of the offender, when offered by or for him, it implies a\n sincere _confession of guilt_, and a hearty desire of obtaining\n _pardon_: and upon the _due_ performance of this service, the sinner\n is pardoned, and escapes the penalty of his transgression.\n\n This we shall find agreeable to the nature of a _sacrifice for sin_,\n as laid down in the Old Testament. Now is there any thing in this\n degrading to the honour of God; or in the smallest degree inconsistent\n with the dictates of natural reason? And in this view, what is there\n in the death of Christ, as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind, that\n may not in a certain degree, be embraced by our natural notions? For\n according to the explanation just given, is it not a declaration to\n the whole world, of the greatness of their sins; and of the\n proportionate mercy and compassion of God, who had ordained this\n method, whereby, in a manner consistent with his attributes, his\n fallen creatures might be again taken into his favour, on their making\n themselves parties in this great sacrifice: that is, on their\n complying with those conditions, which, on the received notion of\n sacrifice, would render them parties in this; namely, an adequate\n conviction of guilt, a proportionate sense of God\u2019s love, and a firm\n determination, with an humble faith in the sufficiency of this\n sacrifice, to endeavour after a life of amendment and obedience? Thus\n much falls within the reach of our comprehension on this mysterious\n subject. Whether in the expanded range of God\u2019s moral government, some\n other end may not be held in view, in the death of his only begotten\n Son, it is not for us to enquire; nor does it in any degree concern\n us: what God _has_ been pleased to reveal, it is alone our duty to\n believe.\n\n One remarkable circumstance indeed there is, in which the sacrifice of\n Christ differs from all those sacrifices which were offered under the\n law. Our blessed Lord was not only the _Subject_ of the offering, but\n the _Priest_ who offered it. Therefore he has become not only a\n sacrifice, but an intercessor; his intercession being founded upon\n this voluntary act of benevolence, by which _he offered himself\n without spot to God_. We are not only then in virtue of the\n _sacrifice_, forgiven; but in virtue of the _intercession_ admitted to\n favour and grace. And thus the scripture notion of the sacrifice of\n Christ, includes every advantage, which the advocates for the pure\n intercession, seek from their scheme of redemption. But it also\n contains others, which they necessarily lose by the rejection of that\n notion. It contains the great advantage of impressing mankind with a\n _due_ sense of their guilt, by compelling a comparison with the\n immensity of the sacrifice made to redeem them from its effects. It\n contains that, in short, which is the soul and substance of all\n Christian virtue\u2014HUMILITY. And the fact is plainly this, that in every\n attempt to get rid of the scripture doctrine of atonement, we find\n feelings of a description opposite to this evangelic quality, more or\n less to prevail: we find a fondness for the opinion of man\u2019s own\n sufficiency, and an unwillingness to submit with devout and implicit\n reverence, to the sacred word of revelation.\n\n In the mode of inquiry which has been usually adopted on this subject,\n one prevailing error deserves to be noticed. The nature of sacrifice,\n as generally practised and understood, antecedent to the time of\n Christ, has been first examined; and from that, as a ground of\n explanation, the notion of Christ\u2019s sacrifice has been derived:\n whereas, in fact by _this_, all former sacrifices are to be\n interpreted; and in reference to _it_ only, can they be understood.\n From an error so fundamental, it is not wonderful that the greatest\n perplexities should have arisen concerning the nature of sacrifice in\n general; and that they should ultimately fall with cumulative\n confusion on the nature of that particular sacrifice, to the\n investigation of which fanciful and mistaken theories had been assumed\n as guides. Thus, whilst some have presumptuously attributed the early\n and universal practice of sacrifice, to an irrational and\n superstitious fear of an imagined sanguinary divinity; and have been\n led in defiance of the express language of revelation, to reject and\n ridicule the notion of sacrifice, as originating only in the grossness\n of superstition: others, not equally destitute of reverence for the\n sacred word, and consequently not treating this solemn rite with equal\n disrespect, have yet ascribed its origin to human invention; and have\n thereby been compelled to account for the divine institution of the\n Jewish sacrifices as a mere accommodation to prevailing practice; and\n consequently to admit, even the sacrifice of Christ itself to have\n grown out of, and been adapted to, this creature of human\n excogitation.\n\n Of this latter class, the theories, as might be expected, are various.\n In one, sacrifices are represented in the light of _gifts_, intended\n to sooth and appease the Supreme Being, in like manner as they are\n found to conciliate the favour of men: in another, they are considered\n as _federal rites_, a kind of eating and drinking with God, as it were\n at his table, and thereby implying the being restored to a state of\n friendship with him, by repentance and confession of sins: in a third,\n they are described as but _symbolical actions_, or a more expressive\n language, denoting the gratitude of the offerer, in such as are\n eucharistical; and in those that are expiatory, the acknowledgment of,\n and contrition for sin strongly expressed by the death of the animal,\n representing _that_ death which the offerer confessed to be his own\n desert.\n\n To these different hypotheses, which in the order of their\n enumeration, claim respectively the names of _Spencer_, _Sykes_, and\n _Warburton_, it may _generally_ be replied, that the _fact_ of Abel\u2019s\n sacrifice seems inconsistent with them all: with the first, inasmuch\n as it must have been antecedent to those distinctions of property, on\n which alone experience of the effects of gifts upon men could have\n been founded: with the second, inasmuch as it took place several ages\n prior to that period, at which both the words of scripture, and the\n opinions of the wisest commentators have fixed the permission of\n animal food to man: with the third, inasmuch as the language, which\n scripture expressly states to have been derived to our first parents\n from divine instruction, cannot be supposed so defective in those\n terms that related to the worship of God, as to have rendered it\n necessary for Abel to call in the aid of actions, to express the\n sentiment of gratitude or sorrow; and still less likely is it that he\n would have resorted to that _species_ of action, which in the eye of\n reason, must have appeared displeasing to God, the slaughter of an\n unoffending animal.\n\n To urge these topics of objection in their full force, against the\n several theories I have mentioned, would lead to a discussion far\n exceeding the due limits of a discourse from this place. I therefore\n dismiss them for the present. Nor shall I, in refutation of the\n _general_ idea of the human invention of sacrifice, enlarge upon the\n _universality_ of the practice; the _sameness_ of the notion of its\n efficacy, pervading nations and ages the most remote; and the\n _unreasonableness_ of supposing any natural connexion between the\n slaying of an animal, and the receiving pardon for the violation of\n God\u2019s laws,\u2014all of which appear decisive against that idea. But, as\n both the general idea and the particular theories which have\n endeavoured to reconcile to it the nature and origin of sacrifice,\n have been caused by a departure from the true and only source of\n knowledge; let us return to that sacred fountain, and whilst we\n endeavour to establish the genuine scripture notion of sacrifice, at\n the same time provide the best refutation of every other.\n\n It requires but little acquaintance with scripture to know that the\n lesson which it every where inculcates, is, that man by disobedience\n had fallen under the displeasure of his Maker; that to be reconciled\n to his favour, and restored to the means of acceptable obedience, a\n Redeemer was appointed, and that this Redeemer laid down his life to\n procure for repentant sinners forgiveness and acceptance. This\n surrender of life has been called by the sacred writers a sacrifice;\n and the end attained by it, expiation or atonement. With such as have\n been desirous to reduce Christianity to a mere moral system, it has\n been a favourite object to represent this sacrifice as entirely\n figurative founded only in allusion and similitude to the sacrifices\n of the law; whereas, that this is spoken of by the sacred writers, as\n a real and proper sacrifice, to which those under the law bore respect\n but as types or shadows, is evident from various passages of holy\n writ, but more particularly from the epistle to the Hebrews; in which\n it is expressly said, that _the law having a shadow of good things to\n come, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year\n continually, make the comers thereunto perfect;\u2014but this man, after he\n had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right\n hand of God_. And again, when the writer of this epistle speaks of the\n high-priest entering into the holy of holies with the blood of the\n sacrifice, he asserts, that _this was a figure for the time then\n present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could\n not make him that did the service perfect; but Christ being come, an\n high priest of good things to come; not by the blood of goats and\n calves, but by his own blood, he entered once into the holy place,\n having obtained eternal redemption for us; for_, he adds, _if the\n blood of bulls and of goats sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh,\n how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal\n Spirit, offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience\n from dead works to serve the living God?_ It must be unnecessary to\n detail more of the numerous passages which go to prove that the\n sacrifice of Christ was a true and effective sacrifice, whilst those\n of the law were but faint representations, and inadequate copies,\n intended for _its_ introduction.\n\n Now, if the sacrifices of the _Law_ appear to have been but\n preparations for this one great sacrifice, we are naturally led to\n consider whether the same may not be asserted of sacrifice from the\n beginning: and whether we are not warranted by scripture, in\n pronouncing the entire rite to have been ordained by God, as a type of\n that ONE SACRIFICE, in which all others were to have their\n consummation.\n\n That the institution was of divine ordinance, may, in the first\n instance, be reasonably inferred from the strong and sensible\n attestation of the divine acceptance of sacrifice in the case of Abel,\n again in that of Noah, afterwards in that of Abraham, and also from\n the systematic establishment of it by the same divine authority, in\n the dispensation of Moses. And whether we consider the book of Job as\n the production of Moses; or of that pious worshipper of the true God,\n among the descendants of Abraham, whose name it bears; or of some\n other person who lived a short time after, and composed it from the\n materials left by Job himself: the representation there made of God,\n as _prescribing_ sacrifices to the friends of Job, in every\n supposition exhibits a strong authority, and of high antiquity, upon\n this question.\n\n These few facts, which I have stated, unaided by any comment, and\n abstracting altogether from the arguments which embarrass the contrary\n hypothesis, and to which I have already alluded, might perhaps be\n sufficient to satisfy an inquiring and candid mind, that sacrifice\n must have had its origin in DIVINE INSTITUTION. But if in addition,\n this rite, as practised in the earliest ages, shall be found connected\n with the sacrifice of Christ, confessedly of divine appointment:\n little doubt can reasonably remain on this head. Let us then examine\n more particularly the circumstance of the first sacrifice offered up\n by Abel.\n\n It is clear from the words of scripture, that both Cain and Abel made\n oblations to the Lord. It is clear also, notwithstanding the well\n known fanciful interpretation of an eminent commentator, that Abel\u2019s\n was an animal sacrifice. It is no less clear, that Abel\u2019s was\n accepted, whilst that of Cain was rejected. Now what could have\n occasioned the distinction? The acknowledgment of the Supreme Being\n and of his universal dominion, was no less strong in the offering of\n the fruits of the earth by Cain, than in that of the firstlings of the\n flock by Abel: the intrinsic efficacy of the gift must have been the\n same in each, each giving of the best that he possessed; the\n expression of gratitude, equally significant and forcible in both. How\n then is the difference to be explained? If we look to the writer to\n the Hebrews, he informs us, that the ground on which Abel\u2019s oblation\n was preferred to that of Cain, was, that Abel offered his in _faith_;\n and the criterion of this faith also appears to have been, in the\n opinion of this writer, the _animal_ sacrifice. The words are\n remarkable\u2014_By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice\n than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God\n testifying of his gifts_. The words here translated, _a more excellent\n sacrifice_, are in an early version rendered _a much more sacrifice_,\n which phrase, though uncouth in form, adequately conveys the original.\n The meaning then is, that by faith Abel offered that which was much\n more of the true nature of sacrifice than what had been offered by\n Cain. Abel consequently was directed by faith, and this faith was\n manifested in the nature of his offering. What then are we to\n infer?\u2014Without some revelation granted, some assurance held out as the\n object of faith, Abel could not have exercised this virtue: and\n without some peculiar mode of sacrifice enjoined, he could not have\n exemplified his faith by an appropriate offering. The offering made,\n we have already seen, was that of an animal. Let us consider whether\n this could have a connexion with any divine assurance communicated at\n that early day.\n\n It is obvious that the promise made to our first parents, conveyed an\n intimation of some future deliverer, who should overcome the tempter\n that had drawn man from his innocence, and remove those evils which\n had been occasioned by the fall. This assurance, without which, or\n some other ground of hope, it seems difficult to conceive how the\n principle of religion could have had place among men, became to our\n first parents the grand object of faith. To perpetuate this\n fundamental article of religious belief among the descendants of Adam,\n some striking memorial of the fall of man, and of the promised\n deliverance, would naturally be appointed. And if we admit that the\n scheme of redemption by the death of the only begotten Son of God, was\n determined from the beginning; that is, if we admit that when God had\n ordained the deliverance of man, he had ordained the means: if we\n admit that Christ was _the Lamb slain from the foundation of the\n world_; what memorial could be devised more apposite than that of\n animal sacrifice?\u2014exemplifying, by the slaying of the victim, the\n death which had been denounced against man\u2019s disobedience:\u2014thus\n exhibiting the awful lesson of that death which was the wages of sin,\n and at the same time representing that death which was actually to be\n undergone by the Redeemer of mankind:\u2014and hereby connecting in one\n view, the two great cardinal events in the history of man, the FALL,\n and the RECOVERY: the death denounced against sin, and the death\n appointed for that Holy One who was to lay down his life to deliver\n man from the consequences of sin. The institution of animal sacrifice\n seems then to have been peculiarly significant, as containing all the\n elements of religious knowledge: and the adoption of this rite, with\n sincere and pious feelings, would at the same time imply an humble\n sense of the unworthiness of the offerer; a confession that death\n which was inflicted on the victim, was the desert of those sins which\n had arisen from man\u2019s transgression; and a full reliance upon the\n promises of deliverance, joined to an acquiescence in the means\n appointed for its accomplishment.\n\n If this view of the matter be just, there is nothing improbable even\n in the supposition that that part of the signification of the rite\n which related to the sacrifice of Christ, might have been in some\n degree made known from the beginning. But not to contend for this,\n (scripture having furnished no express foundation for the assumption,)\n room for the exercise of faith is equally preserved, on the idea that\n animal sacrifice was enjoined in the general as the religious sign of\n faith in the promise of redemption, without any intimation of the way\n in which it became a sign. Agreeably to these principles, we shall\n find but little difficulty in determining on what ground it was that\n Abel\u2019s offering was accepted, whilst that of Cain was rejected. Abel,\n in firm reliance on the promise of God, and in obedience to his\n command, offered that sacrifice which had been enjoined as the\n religious expression of his faith; whilst Cain, disregarding the\n gracious assurances that had been vouchsafed, or at least disdaining\n to adopt the prescribed mode of manifesting his belief, possibly as\n not appearing to _his reason_ to possess any efficacy or natural\n fitness, thought he had sufficiently acquitted himself of his duty in\n acknowledging the general superintendance of God, and expressing his\n gratitude to the Supreme Benefactor, by presenting some of those good\n things which he thereby confessed to have been derived from his\n bounty. In short, Cain, the first-born of the fall, exhibits the first\n fruits of his parents\u2019 disobedience, in the arrogance and\n self-sufficiency of reason, rejecting the aids of revelation, because\n they fell not within _its_ apprehension of right. He takes the first\n place in the annals of deism, and displays, in his proud rejection of\n the ordinance of sacrifice, the same spirit, which, in later days, has\n actuated his _enlightened_ followers, in rejecting the sacrifice of\n Christ.\n\n This view of the subject receives strength, from the terms of\n expostulation in which God addresses Cain, on his expressing\n resentment at the rejection of _his_ offering, and the acceptance of\n Abel\u2019s. The words in the present version are, _if thou doest well,\n shalt thou not be accepted?\u2014and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at\n the door_\u2014which words, as they stand connected in the context, supply\n no very satisfactory meaning, and have long served to exercise the\n ingenuity of commentators to but little purpose. But if the word,\n which is here translated SIN, be rendered, as we find it in a great\n variety of passages in the Old Testament, a SIN OFFERING, the reading\n of the passage then becomes, _if thou doest well, shalt thou not be\n accepted? and if thou doest not well, a sin offering lieth even at the\n door_. The connexion is thus rendered evident. God rebukes Cain for\n not conforming to that species of sacrifice which had been offered by\n Abel. He refers to it as a matter of known injunction; and hereby\n points out the ground of distinction in his treatment of him, and his\n brother: and thus, in direct terms, enforces the observance of animal\n sacrifice.\n\n As that part of my general position, which pronounces sacrifice to\n have been of _divine institution_, receives support from the passage\n just recited; so to that part of it which maintains that this rite\n bore an aspect to the _sacrifice of Christ_, additional evidence may\n be derived from the language of the writer to the Hebrews, inasmuch as\n he places the blood of Abel\u2019s sacrifice in direct comparison with the\n blood of Christ, which he styles pre-eminently _the blood of\n sprinkling_: and represents both as _speaking good things_, in\n different degrees. What then is the result of the foregoing\n reflections?\u2014The sacrifice of Abel was an animal sacrifice. This\n sacrifice was accepted. The ground of this acceptance was the faith in\n which it was offered. Scripture assigns no other object of this faith\n but the promise of a Redeemer: and of this faith, the offering of an\n animal in sacrifice, appears to have been the legitimate, and\n consequently the instituted, expression. The institution of animal\n sacrifice then, was coeval with the fall, and had a reference to the\n sacrifice of our redemption. But as it had also an immediate and most\n apposite application to that important event in the condition of man,\n which, as being the occasion of, was essentially connected with the\n work of redemption, _that_ likewise we have reason to think was\n included in its signification. And thus, upon the whole, SACRIFICE\n appears to have been ordained _as a standing memorial of the death\n introduced by sin, and of that death which was to be suffered by the\n Redeemer_.\n\n We accordingly find this institution of animal sacrifice continue\n until the giving of the law. No other offering than that of an animal\n being recorded in scripture down to this period, except in the case of\n Cain, and that we have seen was rejected. The sacrifices of Noah and\n of Abraham are stated to have been burnt-offerings. Of the same kind\n also were the sin-offerings presented by Job, he being said to have\n offered burnt-offerings according to the number of his sons, lest some\n of them _might have sinned in their hearts_. But when we come to the\n promulgation of the law, we find the connexion between animal\n sacrifice and atonement, or reconciliation with God, clearly and\n distinctly announced. It is here declared that sacrifices for sin\n should, on conforming to certain prescribed modes of oblation, be\n accepted as the means of deliverance from the penal consequences of\n transgression. And with respect to the _peculiar_ efficacy of animal\n sacrifice, we find this remarkable declaration,\u2014_the life of the flesh\n is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar, to make\n atonement for the soul_: in reference to which words, the sacred\n writer formally pronounces, that _without shedding of blood there is\n no remission_. Now in what conceivable light can we view this\n institution, but in relation to that great sacrifice which _was_ to\n make atonement for sins: to that _blood of sprinkling_, which was to\n _speak better things than that of Abel_, or that of the law. The _law_\n itself is said to have had respect solely unto him. To what else can\n the principal institution of the law refer?\u2014an institution too, which\n unless _so_ referred appears utterly unmeaning. The offering up an\n animal cannot be imagined to have had any intrinsic efficacy in\n procuring pardon for the transgression of the offerer. The blood of\n bulls and of goats could have possessed no virtue, whereby to cleanse\n him from his offences. Still less intelligible is the application of\n the blood of the victim to the purifying of the parts of the\n tabernacle, and the apparatus of the ceremonial worship. All this can\n clearly have had no other than an _instituted_ meaning; and can be\n understood only as in reference to some blood-shedding, which in an\n eminent degree possessed the power of purifying from pollution. In\n short, admit the sacrifice of Christ to be held in view in the\n institutions of the law, and every part is plain and intelligible;\n reject that notion, and every theory devised by the ingenuity of man,\n to explain the nature of the ceremonial worship, becomes trifling and\n inconsistent.\n\n Granting then the case of the Mosaic sacrifice and that of Abel\u2019s to\n be the same; neither of them in itself efficacious; both instituted by\n God; and both instituted in reference to that true and efficient\n sacrifice, which was one day to be offered: the rite, as practised\n before the time of Christ, may justly be considered as a SACRAMENTAL\n MEMORIAL, _showing forth the Lord\u2019s death until he came_; and when\n accompanied with a due faith in the promises made to the early\n believers, may reasonable be judged to have been equally acceptable\n with that sacramental memorial, which has been enjoined by our Lord\n himself to his followers, for the _showing forth his death until his\n coming again_. And it deserves to be noticed that this very analogy\n seems to be intimated by our Lord, in the language used by him at the\n institution of that solemn Christian rite. For in speaking of his own\n blood, he calls it, in direct reference to the blood wherewith Moses\n established and sanctified the first covenant, _the blood of the_ NEW\n _covenant, which was shed for the remission of sins_: thus plainly\n marking out the similitude in the nature and objects of the two\n covenants, at the moment that he was prescribing the great sacramental\n commemoration of his own sacrifice.\n\n From this view of the subject, the history of scripture sacrifice\n becomes consistent throughout. The sacrifice of Abel, and the\n patriarchal sacrifices down to the giving of the law, record and\n exemplify those momentous events in the history of man,\u2014the death\n incurred by sin, and that inflicted on our Redeemer. When length of\n time, and mistaken notions of religion leading to idolatry and every\n perversion of the religious principle, had so far clouded and obscured\n this expressive act, of primeval worship, that it had ceased to be\n considered by the nations of the world in that _reference_ in which\n its true value consisted: when the mere rite remained, without any\n remembrance of the promises, and consequently unaccompanied by that\n faith in their fulfilment, which was to render it an acceptable\n service: when the nations, deifying every passion of the human heart,\n and erecting altars to every vice, poured forth the blood of the\n victim, but to deprecate the wrath, or satiate the vengeance of each\n offended deity: when with the recollection of the true God, all\n knowledge of the true worship was effaced from the minds of men: and\n when joined to the _absurdity_ of the sacrificial rites, their\n _cruelty_, devoting to the malignity of innumerable sanguinary gods\n endless multitudes of human victims, demanded the divine interference;\n then we see a people peculiarly selected, to whom, by express\n revelation, the knowledge of the one God is restored, and the species\n of worship ordained by him from the beginning, particularly enjoined.\n The principal part of the Jewish service, we accordingly find to\n consist of sacrifice; to which the virtue of expiation and atonement\n is expressly annexed: and in the manner of it, the particulars appear\n so minutely set forth, that when the _object_ of the whole law should\n be brought to light, no doubt could remain as to its intended\n application. The Jewish sacrifices therefore seem to have been\n designed, as those from the beginning had been, to prefigure that\n _one_, which was to make atonement for all mankind. And as _in_ this\n all were to receive their consummation, so _with_ this they all\n conclude: and the institution closes with the completion of its\n object. But, as the gross perversions, which had pervaded the Gentile\n world, had reached likewise to the chosen people; and as the\n temptations to idolatry, which surrounded them on all sides, were so\n powerful as perpetually to endanger their adherence to the God of\n their fathers, we find the ceremonial service adapted to their carnal\n habits. And since the law itself, with its accompanying sanctions,\n seems to have been principally temporal; so the worship it enjoins is\n found to have been for the most part, rather a public and solemn\n declaration of allegiance to the true God in opposition to the Gentile\n idolatries, than a pure and spiritual obedience in moral and religious\n matters, which was reserved for that more perfect system, appointed to\n succeed in due time, when the state of mankind would permit.\n\n That the sacrifices of the law should therefore have chiefly operated\n to the cleansing from external impurities, and to the rendering\n persons or things fit to approach God in the exercises of the\n ceremonial worship; whilst at the same time they were designed to\n prefigure the sacrifice of Christ, which was purely spiritual, and\n possessed the transcendant virtue of atoning for all moral pollution,\n involves in it no inconsistency whatever, since in this the true\n proportion of the entire dispensations is preserved. And to this\n point, it is particularly necessary that our attention should be\n directed, in the examination of the present subject; as upon the\n _apparent disproportion_ in the objects and effects of sacrifice in\n the Mosaic and Christian schemes, the principal objections against\n their intended correspondence have been founded.\n\n The sacrifices of the law then being preparatory to that of Christ;\n _the law itself being but a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ_; the\n sacred writers in the _New Testament_, naturally adopt the sacrificial\n terms of the ceremonial service, and by their reference to the use of\n them as employed under the law, clearly point out the sense in which\n they are to be understood in their application under the gospel. In\n examining, then, the meaning of such terms, when they occur in the\n _New_ Testament, we are clearly directed to the explanation that is\n circumstantially given of them in the _Old_. Thus, when we find the\n virtue of atonement attributed to the sacrifice of Christ, in like\n manner as it had been to those under the law; by attending to the\n representation so minutely given of it in the latter, we are enabled\n to comprehend its true import in the former.\n\n Of the several sacrifices under the law, that one which seems most\n exactly to illustrate the sacrifice of Christ, and which is expressly\n compared with it by the writer to the Hebrews, is that which was\n offered for the whole assembly on the solemn anniversary of expiation.\n The circumstances of this ceremony, whereby atonement was to be made\n for the sins of the whole Jewish people, seem so strikingly\n significant, that they deserve a particular detail. On the day\n appointed for this general expiation, the priest is commanded to offer\n a bullock and a goat as sin-offerings, the one for himself, and the\n other for the people: and having sprinkled the blood of these in due\n form before the mercy-seat, to lead forth a second goat, denominated\n the scape-goat; and after laying both his hands upon the head of the\n scape-goat, and confessing over him all the iniquities of the people,\n to _put them upon the head_ of the goat, and to send the animal, thus\n bearing the sins of the people, away into the wilderness: in this\n manner expressing by an action, which cannot be misunderstood, that\n the atonement, which it is directly affirmed was to be effected by the\n sacrifice of the sin-offering, consisted in removing from the people\n their iniquities by this symbolical translation to the animal. For it\n is to be remarked, that the ceremony of the scape-goat is not a\n _distinct_ one: it is a continuation of the process, and is evidently\n the concluding part and symbolical consummation of the sin-offering.\n So that the transfer of the iniquities of the people upon the head of\n the scape-goat, and the bearing them away to the wilderness,\n manifestly imply that the atonement effected by the sacrifice of the\n sin-offering, consisted in the transfer and consequent removal of\n those iniquities. What then are we taught to infer from this\n ceremony?\u2014That as the atonement under the law, or expiation of the\n legal transgressions, was represented as a translation of those\n transgressions, in the act of sacrifice in which the animal was slain,\n and the people thereby cleansed from their legal impurities, and\n released from the penalties which had been incurred; so the great\n atonement for the sins of mankind was to be effected by the sacrifice\n of Christ, undergoing for the restoration of men to the favour of God,\n that death which had been denounced against sin; and which he suffered\n in like manner as if the sins of men had been _actually_ transferred\n to him, as those of the congregation had been _symbolically_\n transferred to the sin-offering of the people.\n\n That this is the true meaning of the atonement effected by Christ\u2019s\n sacrifice, receives the fullest confirmation from every part of both\n the Old and the New Testament: and that thus far the death of Christ\n is vicarious, cannot be denied without a total desregard of the sacred\n writings.\n\n It has indeed been asserted, by those who oppose the doctrine of\n atonement as thus explained, that nothing _vicarious_ appears in the\n Mosaic sacrifices. With what justice this assertion has been made, may\n be judged from the instance of the sin-offering that has been adduced.\n The transfer to the animal of the iniquities of the people, (which\n must necessarily mean the transfer of their penal effects, or the\n subjecting the animal to suffer on account of those iniquities)\u2014this\n accompanied with the death of the victim; and the consequence of the\n whole being the removal of the punishment of those iniquities from the\n offerers, and the ablution of all legal offensiveness in the sight of\n God:\u2014thus much of the nature of vicarious, the language of the Old\n Testament justifies us in attaching to the notion of atonement. Less\n than this we are clearly not at liberty to attach to it. And what the\n law thus sets forth as its express meaning, directly determines that\n which we must attribute to the great atonement of which the Mosaic\n ceremony was but a type: always remembering carefully to distinguish\n between the figure and the substance; duly adjusting their relative\n value and extent; estimating the efficacy of the one as real,\n intrinsic, and universal; whilst that of the other is to be viewed as\n limited, derived, and emblematic.\n\n It must be confessed, that to the principles on which the doctrine of\n the Christian atonement has been explained in this, representation of\n it, several objections, in addition to those already noticed, have\n been advanced. These, however, cannot now be examined in this place.\n The most important have been discussed; and as for such as remain, I\n trust that to a candid mind, the general view of the subject which has\n been given, will prove sufficient for their refutation.\u201d\n\n DR. MAGEE.\n\nFootnote 169:\n\n England.\n\nFootnote 170:\n\n _See Whitby\u2019s discourse_, &c. _page 110-112_.\n\nFootnote 171:\n\n _See Quest. LV._\n\nFootnote 172:\n\n _See Page 178, 179, ante._\n\nFootnote 173:\n\n _See Page 169, 170, ante._\n\nFootnote 174:\n\n _See Page 190, ante._\n\nFootnote 175:\n\n _See Vol. I. Page 477, 480._\n\nFootnote 176:\n\n _Tabula post naufragium._\n\nFootnote 177:\n\n _See this insisted on, and farther explained, in answer to an\n objection to the same purpose, against the doctrine of particular\n election, in Vol. I. page 508, 509._\n\nFootnote 178:\n\n _Passiones tribuuntur Deo quoad effectum._\n\nFootnote 179:\n\n _See Whitby\u2019s Discourse, page 145, 146._\n\nFootnote 180:\n\n _See Page 195, 197, ante._\n\nFootnote 181:\n\n _See Whitby\u2019s Discourse, &c. page 113._\n\nFootnote 182:\n\n _Vid. Eras. in loc._\n\nFootnote 183:\n\n \u03a3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b5 \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03bf \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f31\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2\n \u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b7\u03c3\u03b7.\n\nFootnote 184:\n\n \u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u03c9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c1\u03c9.\n\nFootnote 185:\n\n _It may be observed, that as in the scriptures before mentioned, the\n same word_ \u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd _is used in the same tense, namely, the_ second\n aorist, _which our translators think fit to render in the_ present\n tense; _and therefore it may as well be rendered here in the_ present\n tense, _and so the meaning is, You all for whom Christ died_ are dead.\n\nFootnote 186:\n\n \u03a4\u03bf \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 187:\n\n _See Page 501._ Vol. I.\n\nFootnote 188:\n\n _See Quest. LXXIX._\n\nFootnote 189:\n\n \u201cThat the atonement is infinitely full or sufficient for all mankind,\n is evident from the infinite dignity and excellence of the Saviour,\n and from the nature of the atonement. The Saviour, as has been already\n observed, was in his divine nature God over all, one with the Father,\n and equal with him in all divine perfection. And being thus a person\n of infinite dignity and worth, it gave an infinite value or efficacy\n to his obedience, sufferings and death, and thus rendered his\n atonement infinitely full.\u2014\u2014\n\n It appears from express declarations of scripture, that Christ has\n died for all mankind, or has made an atonement sufficient for all.\n Thus it is declared, \u2018That he by the grace of God should taste death\n for every man, and that he is the Saviour of all men, especially of\n those that believe.\u2019 These passages clearly teach, that the Saviour\n has died, or made atonement for all mankind, and it seems, that the\n last of them cannot rationally be understood in any other sense. For\n it expressly declares, that he is the Saviour, not of those who\n believe only, but of all men in distinction from these. Therefore his\n atonement must have had respect to all the human race. Accordingly\n Christ is called \u2018The Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the\n world; and the Saviour of the world.\u2019 The apostle John, addressing\n Christians, says, \u2018He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for\n ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.\u2019 Here also Jesus\n Christ is declared to be the propitiation for the sins of the whole\n world, in distinction from those of believers. These, and other\n similar passages teach in the clearest manner, that Christ has made an\n atonement for all mankind, or for the whole world. It seems hardly\n possible for words to express this sentiment more clearly than it is\n expressed in these passages; and some of them will not admit of any\n other sense, without a very forced, unnatural construction.\n\n Should it be said, that such expressions as _all men_, _the world_,\n &c. must sometimes be understood in a limited or restricted sense; it\n may be answered, that it is an established, invariable rule, that all\n phrases, or passages of scripture are to be understood in their most\n plain, easy, and literal import, unless the connexion, the general\n analogy of faith, or some other necessary considerations require a\n different sense. But in the present case it does not appear, that any\n of these considerations require, that these passages should be\n understood in any other than their plain, natural meaning.\u2014\n\n That the atonement is sufficient for all mankind, is evident from the\n consideration, that the calls, invitations and offers of the gospel\n are addressed to all, without exception, in the most extensive\n language. It is said, \u2018Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of\n the earth. Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. Ho,\n every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no\n money: come ye, buy and eat, yea, come, buy wine and milk without\n money, and without price. Go, and preach the gospel to every\n creature.\u2019 The preachers of the gospel are directed to tell their\n hearers, that all things are ready\u2014that all may come, who will, and\n are to invite and urge all, to come to the gospel feast and freely\n partake of the blessings of salvation. But how could the offer of\n salvation be consistently thus made to all without any limitation; if\n the atonement was sufficient but for a part or for the elect only? On\n this supposition it could not with truth and propriety be said to all,\n that all things are ready, plentiful provisions are made for all, and\n whosoever will, may come. Were a feast, sufficient but for fifty\n provided: could we consistently send invitations to a thousand, and\n tell them that a plentiful feast was prepared, and that all things\n were ready for their entertainment, if they would but come? Would not\n such an invitation appear like a deception? If so, then the offer and\n invitation of the gospel could not have been made to all without\n discrimination, as they are; if there was no atonement, but for a\n part. As therefore the invitations of the gospel are thus addressed to\n all, it is a proof that Christ has made an atonement for all mankind.\n\n Again, the scripture represents, that there is no difficulty in the\n way of the salvation of the impenitent, but what arises from their own\n opposition of heart or will. Thus the Lord Jesus says to the\n unbelieving Jews, \u2018Ye will not come unto, me, that ye may have life. O\n Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered thy children\u2014and\n ye would not.\u2019 In the parable of the marriage supper, it is\n represented, that there was no difficulty in the way to prevent those\n who were invited, from partaking of the feast, but their own\n unwillingness to come. But if there was no atonement made but for\n those only who are saved; then there would be an insurmountable\n difficulty in the way of the salvation of all others, aside from the\n one arising from their own opposition of heart. As therefore the\n scripture teaches, that there is no difficulty in the way of the\n salvation of any under the gospel, but what arises from their own\n unwillingness, or wicked opposition of heart, it is manifest, that\n there is an atonement for all.\n\n The word of God teaches, that it is the duty of all, who are\n acquainted with the gospel, to believe in the Lord Jesus, and trust in\n him as their Redeemer, and that they are very criminal for neglecting\n to do this. It is therefore declared in the sacred scriptures, that it\n is the command of God, \u2018that we should believe on the name of his Son\n Jesus Christ, and that those, who believe not, are condemned already,\n because they have not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of\n God.\u2019\n\n It is manifest from the various reasons which have been suggested,\n that the atonement of Jesus Christ is infinitely full, or sufficient\n for the salvation of all mankind, if they would but cordially receive\n it, and that the want of such an atonement, is not the reason, why all\n are not saved.\u2014\u2014\n\n It will no more follow, that all will be saved, because the atonement\n is sufficient for all, than it would, that all would eat of the\n marriage supper in the parable, because it was sufficient for all, and\n all were invited. This parable was designed to represent the gospel\n and its invitations.\u2014As those, who neglected the invitation, never\n tasted of the supper, although the provisions were plentiful for all;\n so the scriptures teach, that many will not comply with the terms and\n invitations of the gospel, and partake of its blessings, although the\n atonement is abundantly sufficient for all. For the Saviour declares,\n that \u201cmany are called, but few are chosen, and strait is the gate and\n narrow is the way which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find\n it.\u201d\n\n CONNECTICUT EVANG. MAG.\n\n Such interpretation of Scripture does not require the admission\n that the atonement was absolutely indefinite. Christ might know\n his sheep and die for them, and yet, by the same covenant or\n purpose procure terms for others which he knew they would reject.\n\nFootnote 190:\n\n _See Quest. LV._\n\n\n\n\n Quest. XLV.\n\n\n QUEST. XLV. _How doth Christ execute the office of a King?_\n\n ANSWER. Christ executeth the office of a King, in calling out of the\n world a people to himself, and giving them officers, laws, and\n censures, by which he visibly governs them, in bestowing saving\n grace upon his elect, rewarding their obedience, and correcting them\n for their sins, preserving and supporting them under all their\n temptations and sufferings, restraining and overcoming all their\n enemies, and powerfully ordering all things for his own glory, and\n their own good; and also in taking vengeance on the rest who know\n not God, and obey not the gospel.\n\nA King is a person advanced to the highest dignity; in this sense the\nword is used in scripture, and in our common acceptation thereof, as\napplied to men; and more particularly it denotes his having dominion\nover subjects, and therefore it is a relative term; and the exercise of\nthis dominion is confined within certain limits: But, as it is applied\nto God, it denotes universal dominion, as the Psalmist says, _God is\nKing of all the earth_, Psal. xlvii. 7. in this respect therefore, it is\nproperly a divine perfection. That which we are led to consider, in this\nanswer, is how Christ is more especially styled _a King_, as Mediator.\nDivines generally distinguish his kingdom into that which is natural,\nand that which is Mediatorial; the former is founded in his deity, and\nnot received by commission from the Father, in which respect he would\nhave been the Governor of the world, as the Father is, though man had\nnot fallen, and there had been no need of a Mediator; the latter is,\nwhat we are more especially to consider, namely, his Mediatorial\nkingdom, which the Psalmist intends, when he represents the Father, as\nsaying, _Yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion_, Psal. ii. 6.\n\nThe method in which we shall speak concerning Christ\u2019s Kingly office,\nshall be by shewing who are the subjects thereof; the manner of his\ngoverning them; and the various ages in which this government is, or\nshall be exercised; together with the different circumstances relating\nto the administration of his government therein.\n\nI. Concerning the subjects governed by him. These are either his\n_people_ or his _enemies_; the former of these are, indeed, by nature,\nenemies to his government, and unwilling to subject themselves to him,\nbut they are made willing in the day of his power, are pleased with his\ngovernment, and made partakers of the advantages thereof; the latter, to\nwit, his enemies are forced to bow down before him, as subdued by him,\nthough not to him; so that, with respect to his people and his enemies,\nhe exercises his government various ways. Which leads us to consider,\n\nII. The manner in which Christ exercises his Kingly government; and\nthat,\n\n_First_, With respect to his people. This government is external and\nvisible, or internal and spiritual; in the latter of which he exerts\ndivine power, and brings them into a state of grace and salvation. The\nChurch is eminently the seat of his government, which will be farther\nobserved under a following answer[191]; and therefore, at present we\nshall only consider them as owning his government, by professing their\nsubjection to him, and thereby separating themselves from the world; and\nChrist governs them, as is observed in this answer, by giving them\nofficers, laws, and censures, and many other privileges, which the\nmembers of the visible church are made partakers of; of which more in\nits proper place.\n\nThat which we shall principally consider, at present, is Christ\u2019s\nexercising his spiritual and powerful government over his elect, in\nthose things that more immediately concern their salvation. And here we\nmay observe,\n\n1. Their character and temper, before they are brought, in a saving way,\ninto Christ\u2019s kingdom. There is no difference between them and the rest\nof the world, who are the subjects of Satan\u2019s kingdom; their hearts are\nby nature, full of enmity and rebellion against him, and they are\nsuffered sometimes to run great lengths in opposing his government, and\ntheir lives discover a fixed resolution not to submit to him, whatever\nbe the consequence thereof: _Other lords_, says the church, _have\ndominion over them_, Isa. xxvi. 13. _they serve divers lusts and\npleasures_, Tit. iii. 3. _walk according to the course of this world,\naccording to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now\nworketh in the children of disobedience_, Eph. ii. 2. and some of them\nhave reason to style themselves, as the apostle Paul says he was before\nhis conversion, 1 Tim. i. 15.\n\nSometimes, indeed, they meet with some checks and rebukes of conscience,\nwhich, for a while, put them to a stand; and they seem inclinable to\nsubmit to Christ, as being afraid of his vengeance, or their own\nconsciences suggest the reasonableness thereof; and this issues in some\nhasty resolutions, arising from the terror of their own thoughts, or the\nprospect of some advantage, which will accrue to them thereby, whereby\ntheir condition may be rendered better than what they, at present,\napprehend it to be; and this extorts from them a degree of compliance\nwith the gospel-overture, especially if Christ would stoop to those\nterms, which corrupt nature is willing to conform itself to; or make\nthose abatements, that would be consistent with their serving God and\nmammon. In this case, they are like the person whom our Saviour\nmentions, who being called, replies, _I go, Sir, and went not_, Matt.\nxxi. 30. Sometimes they promise that they will submit hereafter, if they\nmay but be indulged in their course of life for the present, and, like\nFelix, would attend to these matters at a more convenient season; or, as\none is represented, desiring our Saviour that he might _first go and\nbury his father_, Matt. viii. 21. by which we are not to understand his\nperforming that debt, which the law of nature obliged him to perform to\na deceased parent, which might have been soon discharged, and been no\nhindrance to his following Christ: but he seems to be desirous to be\nexcused from following him till his father was dead, and all this with a\ndesign to gain time, or to ward off present convictions, his domestic\naffairs inclining him not immediately to subject himself to Christ, or\nto take up his lot with him, or to forsake all and follow him, though he\nwas not insensible that this was his duty. This is the temper and\ncharacter of persons before they are effectually persuaded to submit to\nChrist\u2019s government; and the consequence hereof is oftentimes their not\nonly losing their convictions, but returning with stronger resolutions\nto their former course, and adding greater degrees of rebellion to their\niniquity.\n\n2. There are several methods used, by Christ, to bring sinners into\nsubjection to him; some of which are principally objectionable, and,\nthough not in themselves sufficient, yet necessary to answer this end.\nAccordingly,\n\n(1.) He gives them to understand that there is an inevitable necessity\nof perishing, if they persist in their rebellion against him, as our\nSaviour says, _Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish_, Luke\nxiii. 3. or, as it is said elsewhere, _Who hath hardened himself against\nhim, and hath prospered?_ Job ix. 4. and that the consequence thereof\nwill be, that _those his enemies that would not that he should reign\nover them, shall be brought forth, and slain before him_, Luke xix. 27.\nAnd this is not only considered in a general way, as what other sinners\nare given to expect, but impressed on the conscience, and particularly\napplied to himself, whereby he is convinced that his present course is\nnot only dangerous, but destructive, and fills him with that distress\nand concern of soul, which is the beginning of that work of grace, that\nshall afterwards be brought to perfection.\n\n(2.) Christ holds forth his golden sceptre, and makes a proclamation to\nsinners to return and submit to him, and, at the same time, expresses\nhis willingness to receive all that by faith, close with the\ngospel-overture, and cast themselves at his feet with sincere\nrepentance: thus he says, _Him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast\nout_, John vi. 37. and, how vile soever they have been, their\nunworthiness shall not be a bar to hinder his acceptance of them.\n\n(3.) He also shews them their obligation to obey and submit to him, as\ntheir rightful Lord and Sovereign, who claims divine _worship_ from\nthem, Psal. xlv. 11. and what unanswerable engagements they are laid\nunder hereunto, from all that he did and suffered in life and death,\nwhereby he not only expressed the highest love, but purchased to himself\na peculiar people, who must own him as their King, if they expect to\nreap the blessed fruits and effects of his purchase, as a Priest: this\nChrist convinces them of. And,\n\n(4.) He represents to them the vast advantages that will attend their\nsubjection to his government, as they shall not only obtain a full and\nfree pardon of all their past crimes, and be taken into favour as much\nas though they had never forfeited it, but he will confer on them all\nthose graces that accompany salvation, and advance them to the highest\nhonour; upon which account they are said to be made _kings and priests\nunto God_, Rev. i. 6. yea, he will grant them _to sit with him in his\nthrone_, Rev. iii. 21. not as sharing any part of his Mediatorial glory,\nbut as being near to him that sits on the throne, and having all those\ntokens of his regard to them that are agreeable to their condition, or\nthe relation they stand in to him, as subjects. He presents to their\nview all the promises of the covenant of grace, which are in his hand,\nto accomplish, and gives them ground to expect all the blessings he hath\npurchased, assures them that he will admit them to the most delightful\nand intimate communion with himself here; that he _will keep them from\nfalling_, and, in the end, _present them faultless before the presence\nof his glory with exceeding joy_, Jude, ver. 14. and as for their past\nfollies, ingratitude, and rebellion against him, he tells them, that\nthese shall be passed over, and _not laid to their charge_, Rom. viii.\n33. for their confusion and condemnation, how expedient soever it may be\nfor him to bring them to their remembrance, to humble them, and enhance\ntheir love and gratitude to him, who will, notwithstanding, forgive\nthem.\n\n(5.) He gives them to understand what duties he expects from them, and\nwhat are the laws that all his subjects are obliged to obey, and\naccordingly that he will not give forth any dispensation or allowance to\nsin, which is a returning again to folly; neither will he suffer them to\nmake their own will the rule of their actions, or to live as they list,\nnor to give way to carnal security, negligence, or indifference in his\nservice, but they must be always pressing forwards, running the race he\nhas set before them with diligence and industry, that they _be not\nslothful, but followers of them, who, through faith and patience,\ninherit the promises_, Heb. vi. 12. and not only so, _but fervent in\nspirit, serving the Lord_, Rom. xii. 11. that they must have a zeal for\nhis honour, as those that appear to be in good earnest, and prefer his\ninterest to their own; and that this must be tempered with meekness,\nlest, whilst they seem to be espousing his cause, they give ground to\nconclude that the indulging their irregular passions is what they\nprincipally design. As for the obedience he demands of them, it must be\nuniversal, with their whole heart, and to the utmost of their power; and\ntherefore if the duty enjoined be difficult, they must not say, as some\nof his followers did, _This is a hard saying, who can hear it?_ John vi.\n60. but rather, in this case, depend on his grace for strength to enable\nthem to perform it; and, as they are to obey his commanding will, so he\ntells them they must submit to his providential will, and therein\nglorify his sovereignty, and reckon every thing good that he does,\ninasmuch as it proceeds from a wise and gracious hand, and is rendered\nsubservient to answer the best ends, for his glory and their advantage.\n\nMoreover, he tells them, that whatever obedience they may be enabled to\nperform, they must ascribe the glory thereof not to themselves, but to\nhim, as he is the Author and Finisher of faith, and works in them all\nthose graces that he requires of them. And, when they have thus engaged\nin his service, and their faces are turned heaven-ward, he obliges them\nnever to think of returning to their former state and company, or\nsubject themselves to the tyranny they are delivered from: as the angel\nordered Lot, when he was escaped out of Sodom, not so much as to look\nback, as one that had a hankering mind to what he had left behind him;\nor like the Israelites, who longed for the onions and garlic, and the\nflesh-pots of Egypt, when they were on their journey towards the good\nland, which God had promised them. Thus Christ expects that all his\nsubjects should not only obey him, but that they should do this with\nunfainting perseverance, as _not being of them who draw back unto\nperdition, but of them that believe to the saving of the soul_, Heb. x.\n39. Thus concerning their present obligations and future advantages,\ntogether with the duties they are engaged to perform; or the laws of\nChrist\u2019s kingdom, which he makes known to them, before they are brought\ninto subjection to him.\n\nAnd to this we may add, that he not only presents to them the bright,\nbut the dark side of the cloud, and sets before them the many\ndifficulties and troubles, they are like to meet with in this world, in\ncommon with the rest of his subjects, that they may not hereafter be\nunder any temptation, to complain as though they were disappointed, when\nthings go otherwise than they were given to expect: as with one hand he\nrepresents to their view the crown of life; so, with the other, he holds\nforth the cross, which they must take up and follow him, Matt. xvi. 24.\nif they would be his disciples. He does not conceal from them the evils\nthey are like to meet with from the world, but tells them plainly, that\nthey must expect to be hated of all men for his name sake, Matt. x. 22.\nand be willing to part with all things for him, especially if standing\nin competition with him; so that _he who loveth father or mother, son or\ndaughter_, yea, _his own life, more than him, is not worthy of him_,\nver. 37, compared with Luke xiv. 26. and, that self-denial must be their\ndaily exercise, that no idol of jealousy must be set up in their hearts;\nno secret or darling lust indulged, as being not only contrary to the\ntemper and disposition of his subjects, and a dishonour to their\ncharacter, but inconsistent with that supreme love that is due to him\nalone: he also warns them not to hold any confederacy with his enemies,\nstrictly forbids them to make any covenant with death and hell, and\nrequires that all former covenants therewith should be disannulled and\nbroken, as containing a tacit denial of their allegiance to him.\n\nThus concerning the methods which Christ useth in an objective way, to\nbring his people to his kingdom. But these are not regarded by the\ngreatest part of those that sit under the sound of the gospel; nor,\nindeed, are they effectual to answer this end in any, till he is pleased\nto incline and enable them, by his power, to submit to him; he must\nfirst conquer them before they will obey. Before this they had no more\nthan an external overture, or representation of things, in which he\ndealt with them as intelligent creatures, in order to their becoming his\nsubjects out of choice, as having the strongest motives and inducements\nthereunto: but this is an internal work upon the heart, whereby every\nthing, that hindered their compliance is removed, and they are drawn by\nthat power, without which none can come unto him, John vi. 44. their\nhearts are broken, their wills renewed, and all the powers and faculties\nof their souls inclined to subscribe to his government, as king of\nsaints. This leads us to consider,\n\n3. How persons first express their willingness to be Christ\u2019s subjects;\nwhat engagements they lay themselves under, and what course they take\npursuant thereunto.\n\n(1.) They cast themselves at his feet with the greatest humility and\nreverence, being sensible of their own vileness and ingratitude, and, at\nthe same time, are greatly affected with his clemency and grace, who,\nnotwithstanding their unworthiness, invites them to come to him; which\nthey do, not as desiring to capitulate, or stand upon terms with him,\nbut they are willing that he should make his own terms, like one that\nsends a blank paper to his victorious prince, that he might write upon\nit what he pleases, and expresses his willingness to subscribe it. This\nmay be illustrated by the manner in which Benhadad\u2019s servants, when his\narmy was entirely ruined, and he no longer able to make resistance\nagainst Ahab, present themselves before him with sackcloth on their\nloins, and ropes on their heads, in token of the greatest humility,\ntogether with an implicit acknowledgment of what they had deserved; and\nwithout the usual method of entering into treaties of peace, the only\nmessage they were to deliver was, _Thy servant Benhadad saith, I pray\nthee let me live_, 1 Kings xx. 32. Thus the humble returning sinner\nimplores forgiveness, and a right to his life, as an act of grace, at\nthe hand of Christ, who has been represented to him, as a merciful king,\nand ready to receive returning sinners.\n\n(2.) This subjection to Christ is attended with the greatest love to,\nand desire after him, which they express to his person, and his service,\nas well as those rewards that attend it, being constrained hereunto by\nthat love and compassion, which he hath shewed to them; and by those\njust ideas which they are now brought to entertain, concerning every\nthing that belongs to his kingdom and interest.\n\n(3.) They consent to be the Lord\u2019s, by a solemn act of self-dedication,\nor surrender of themselves, and all that they have, to him, as seeing\nthemselves obliged so to do; and therefore they desire to be his, to all\nintents and purposes, his entirely, and for ever.\n\n(4.) Since there are many difficult duties incumbent on Christ\u2019s\nsubjects, and many blessings which they hope to receive, they express\ntheir entire dependance on him for grace, to enable them to behave\nthemselves agreeably to the obligations they are under, that they may\nnot turn aside from him, or deal treacherously with him, as being\nunsteadfast in his covenant: they also rely on his faithfulness for the\naccomplishment of all the promises, which afford matter of relief and\nencouragement to them; and this is accompanied with a fixed purpose, or\nresolution to wait on him, in all his ordinances, as means appointed by\nhim, in which they hope to obtain those blessings they stand in need of.\n\n(5.) This is done with a solemn withdrawing themselves from, renouncing\nand testifying their abhorrence of those to whom they have formerly been\nin subjection, whose interest is contrary to, and subversive of Christ\u2019s\ngovernment. These they count to be their greatest, yea, their only\nenemies, and proclaim open war against them, and that with a fixed\nresolution, by the grace of God, to pursue it to the utmost; like the\ncourageous soldier, who, having drawn his sword, throws away the\nscabbard, as one that will not leave off fighting till he has gained a\ncomplete victory; and this resolution is increased by that hatred which\nhe entertains against sin, and is exercised in proportion to it: the\nenemies against whom he engages, are the world, the flesh, and the\ndevil; the motives that induce him thereunto are because they are\nenemies to Christ, and stand in the way of his salvation. Now, that he\nmight manage this warfare with success, he takes to himself the whole\narmour of God, which the apostle describes, Eph. vi. 11-17. which is\nboth offensive and defensive. And he also considers himself as obliged\nto shun all treaties or proposals made by them, to turn him aside from\nChrist, and all correspondence with them, and to avoid every thing that\nmay prove a snare or temptation to him, or tend to Christ\u2019s dishonour.\n\nAnd to this we may add, that he hath a due sense of his obligation, to\nendeavour to deliver others from their servitude to sin and Satan, to\nencourage those who are almost persuaded to submit to Christ, and to\nstrengthen the hands of those who are already entered into his service,\nengaged with him in the same warfare against his enemies, and pursuing\nthe same design, conducive to his glory. The methods he takes in order\nhereunto, are truly warrantable, and becoming the servants of Christ: he\nis not like the scribes and Pharisees, who were very zealous to gain\nproselytes to their interest, which, when they had done, _they made them\ntwofold more the children of hell than themselves_, Matt. xxiii. 15. but\nmakes it his business to convince those he converses with, that they are\nsubject to the greatest tyranny of those who intend nothing but their\nruin; that they serve them who have no right to their service, and, that\nthe only way to obtain liberty, is to enter into Christ\u2019s service, and\nthen they will be _free indeed_, John viii. 36. Moreover, he endeavours\nto remove those prejudices, and answer all objections which Satan\nusually brings, or furnishes his subjects with, against Christ and his\ngovernment. If they say, with the daughters of Jerusalem, _What is thy\nbeloved more than another beloved?_ he has many things to say in his\ncommendation; as, the church is brought in using various metaphorical\nexpressions to set forth his glory, and he joins with them in that\ncomprehensive character given of him, which contains the sum of all that\nwords can express, _He is altogether lovely; this is my beloved, and\nthis is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem_, Cant. v. 9, 16. This\nconcerning the way in which Christ\u2019s subjects engage against, and oppose\nSatan\u2019s kingdom.\n\nBut let it be farther considered, that the opposition is mutual: when\npersons are delivered out of the power of darkness, and translated into\nChrist\u2019s kingdom, they are not to expect to be wholly free from the\nassaults of their spiritual enemies, and these oftentimes gain great\nadvantages against them from the remainders of corrupt nature, in the\nbest of men. The devil is represented, by the apostle, as a _roaring\nlion, who walketh about seeking whom he may devour_, 1 Pet. v. 8.\nSometimes he gives disturbance to Christ\u2019s subjects, by inclining men to\nexercise their persecuting rage and fury against the church, designing\nhereby to work upon their fears; at other times, he endeavours, as it\nwere, by methods of bribery, to engage unstable persons in his interest,\nby the overture of secular advantage; or else to discourage some, by\npretending that religion is a melancholy thing, that they who embrace\nit, are like to strive against the stream, and meet with nothing but\nwhat will make them uneasy in the world. This opposition, which is\ndirected against Christ\u2019s kingdom, proves oftentimes very discouraging\nto his subjects; but there are attempts of another nature often used to\namuse, discourage, and destroy their peace, by taxing them with\nhypocrisy, and pretending, that all their hope of an interest in\nChrist\u2019s favour and protection, is but a delusion, and therefore it had\nbeen better for them not to have given in their names to him, since the\nonly consequence thereof will be the aggravating their condemnation. If\nthe providences of God be dark and afflictive, he endeavours to suggest\nto them hard thoughts of Christ, and to make them question his goodness,\nand faithfulness, and to say, with the Psalmist, _Verily, I have\ncleansed my heart in vain, and have washed my hands in innocency_, Psal.\nlxxiii. 13. and, when God is pleased, at any time, for wise ends, to\ndeny them his comforting presence, the enemy is ready, on this occasion,\nto persuade them, as the Psalmist represents some speaking to the like\npurpose, that _there is no help for them in God_, Psal. iii. 2.\n\nThese methods are often used, by the enemies of Christ\u2019s kingdom, to\nweaken the hands of his subjects, whereby the exercise of their graces\nis often interrupted, and they are hurried into many sins, through the\nviolence of temptation; nevertheless they shall not wholly revolt. Grace\nmay be foiled, and weakened thereby, but it shall not be utterly\nextinguished; for, though they be guilty of many failures and\nmiscarriages, which discover them to be in an imperfect state, yet they\nare preserved from relapsing into their former state; and not only so,\nbut are often enabled to prevail against their spiritual enemies, in\nwhich the concern of Christ, for their good, eminently discovers itself;\nand, if the advantage gained against them be occasioned by their going\nin the way of temptation, or not being on their guard, or using those\nmeans that might prevent their being overcome thereby, this is\nover-ruled by Christ, to the humbling and making them more watchful for\nthe future; or if God has left them to themselves, that he may shew them\nthe sin and folly of their self-confidence, or reliance on their own\nstrength, this shall be a means to induce them to be more dependent on\nhim for the future, as well as importunate with him, by faith and\nprayer, for that grace, which is sufficient to prevent their total and\nfinal apostasy, as well as to recover them from their present\nback-slidings. And these many weaknesses and defects, which gave them so\nmuch uneasiness, will induce them to sympathize with others in the like\ncondition; and the various methods which Christ takes for their\nrecovery, will render them skilful in directing others how to escape, or\ndisentangle themselves from this snare, in which they have been taken,\nand which has given them so much uneasiness.\n\nWe might here have enlarged on that particular branch of this subject,\nwhich respects the warfare that is to be carried on by every one who\nlists himself under Christ\u2019s banner, and owns him to be his rightful\nLord and Sovereign, which takes up a very considerable part of the\nChristian life; as he is said _to wrestle not_ only _against flesh and\nblood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of\nthe darkness of this world_, and _against spiritual wickedness in high\nplaces_, Eph. vi. 12. and elsewhere we read of _the flesh lusting\nagainst the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh_, Gal. v. 17. But\nthis will be considered under a following answer, in which we shall be\nled to speak of the imperfection of sanctification in believers,\ntogether with the reasons thereof;[192] and therefore we pass it over at\npresent, and shall proceed to consider,\n\n4. How Christ deals with his subjects after he has brought them\nhitherto, and inclined and enabled them to submit to his government:\nthis is expressed in the answer we are explaining, in the following\nheads.\n\n(1.) He rewards their obedience. This supposes that he requires that\nthey should obey him, and that their obedience should be constant and\nuniversal, otherwise they deserve not the character of subjects; and, as\nto what concerns the regard of Christ to this obedience, though herein\nmen are not profitable to God, as they are to themselves, or to one\nanother, yet it shall not go unrewarded. The blessings which Christ\nconfers on them are sometimes styled a reward, inasmuch as there is a\ncertain connexion between their duty and interest, or their obeying and\nbeing made blessed, which blessedness is properly the reward of what\nChrist has done, though his people esteem it as an act of the highest\nfavour; in this sense he rewards their obedience, and that either by\nincreasing their graces, and establishing their comforts here; or by\nbringing them to perfection hereafter. But inasmuch as their obedience\nis, at present, very imperfect, which tends very much to their reproach,\nand affords matter of daily humiliation before God, it is farther added,\n\n(2.) That Christ corrects them for their sins. This is inserted among\nthe advantages of his government, though it is certain, that\nafflictions, absolutely considered, are not to be desired; nevertheless,\nsince they are sometimes _needful_, 1 Pet. i. 6. and conducive to our\nspiritual advantage, they are included in this gracious dispensation,\nwhich attends Christ\u2019s government, as _by these things men live_, Isa.\nxxxviii. 16. How much soever nature dreads them, yet Christ\u2019s people\nconsider them as designed for their good, and therefore not only submit\nto them, but conclude that herein he deals with them. As we are far from\nblaming the skilful chirurgeon, who sets a bone that is out of joint, or\ncuts off a limb, when it is necessary to save our lives, though neither\nof these can be done without great pain: thus when God visits our\ntransgressions with the rod, and our iniquities with stripes, we reckon\nthat he deals with us as a merciful and gracious Sovereign, and not as\nan enemy, since his design is to heal our backslidings, and prevent a\nworse evil from ensuing thereby.\n\n(3.) He preserves and supports his subjects under all their temptations\nand sufferings. There are two sorts of temptations mentioned in\nscripture, to wit, such as are merely providential, which are designed\nas trials of faith and patience; as when the apostle says, _My brethren,\ncount it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations, knowing this,\nthat the trial of your faith worketh patience_, James i. 2, 3. and\nelsewhere the apostle Paul, speaking of the persecutions which he met\nwith from the Jews, calls them _temptations_, Acts xx. 19. But, besides\nthese, there are other temptations which arise from sin, Satan, and the\nworld, whereby endeavours are used more directly to draw Christ\u2019s\nsubjects from their allegiance to him: thus it is said, _Every man is\ntempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed_, James i.\n14. and elsewhere, _They that will be rich_, that is, who use indirect\nmeans to attain that end, or make this the grand design of life, _fall\ninto temptation, and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts,\nwhich drown men in destruction and perdition_, 1 Tim. vi. 9. and the\ndevil, who has a great hand in managing these temptations, and solicits\nus to comply therewith, is, for that reason, called, by way of eminency,\n_the tempter_, 1 Thes. iii. 5. and Matt. iv. 3. In both these respects,\nbelievers are exposed to great danger, by reason of temptations, and\nneed either to be preserved from, or supported under them, that they may\nnot prove their ruin; and this Christ does in managing the affairs of\nhis kingdom of grace for his people\u2019s advantage, and herein that promise\nis fulfilled to them, _There hath no temptation taken you, but such as\nis common to man; but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be\ntempted above what ye are able, but will, with the temptation also, make\na way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it_, 1 Cor. x. 13.\n\n(4.) Christ powerfully orders all things for his own glory, and his\npeople\u2019s good, as they are said to _work together for good_, Rom. viii.\n28. and herein his wisdom, as well as his goodness, is illustrated.\nSometimes, indeed, they cannot see from the beginning of an afflictive\nprovidence to the end thereof, or what advantage God designs thereby;\nherein we may apply those words of our Saviour to Peter, though spoken\nwith another view, _What I do, thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know\nhereafter_, John xiii. 7. This will eminently appear, when they shall\nsee how every step which Christ has taken in the management of his\ngovernment, has had a subserviency to promote their spiritual advantage\nhereafter. Thus we have considered how Christ executes his Kingly\noffice, more especially towards his people, who are his faithful\nsubjects.\n\n_Secondly_, We are now to speak concerning the exercise of Christ\u2019s\nKingly government towards his enemies. He is, as has been before\nobserved, their King; not by consent, or voluntary subjection to him,\nnor do they desire to own his authority, or yield obedience to his laws;\nbut they are, notwithstanding, to be reckoned the subjects of his\ngovernment; which is exercised,\n\n1. In setting bounds to their power and malice, so that they cannot do\nwhat they would against his cause and interest in the world. How far\nsoever he may suffer them to proceed to the disadvantage of his people;\nyet he is able to crush them in a moment; and, when he sees their rage,\nand how they set themselves against him with their combined force, and\ninsult, as though they had brought their designs to bear, as not\ndoubting the success thereof, he tells them plainly, that _they imagine\na vain thing_, and that _he that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh; the\nLord shall have them in derision_, Psal. ii. 1, 4. and the reason is\nvery obvious, because God is greater than man. Though it would be a\ndishonour to him to say, that he is the author of sin, yet it redounds\nto his glory, that he sets bounds and limits to it, and over-rules it by\nhis wisdom to his own glory; as it is said, _Surely, the wrath of man\nshall praise thee; the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain_, Psal.\nlxxvi. 10.\n\n2. Christ has exercised his Kingly government in gaining a victory over\nhis enemies; this he did, when _he spoiled principalities and powers,\nand made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in his cross_.\nThis, indeed, was done by him, when he was in the lowest depths of his\nsufferings, and, in a more eminent degree, exercised his Priestly\noffice; yet, in some respects, he is said, at that time, to have\nexercised his Kingly, and that in a very triumphant manner, as it is\nhere expressed; and elsewhere he is said, _through death, to have\ndestroyed him that had the power of death, that is, the devil_, Heb. ii.\n14. hereby he purchased those restraints which the powers of darkness\nwere brought under more than they were before. Satan\u2019s chain was hereby\nshortened, and his subjects delivered out of his hand, being ransomed by\nthe blood of Christ; and, as the consequence thereof, they were\nafterwards persuaded to withdraw their necks from that yoke, which they\nwere formerly under, by the power of that grace that attended the\npreaching of the gospel, whereby they were subjected to Christ\u2019s\ngovernment. Moreover, our Saviour tells his people, that he had\n_overcome the world_, John xvi. 33. not only because he had in his own\nPerson, escaped the pollution thereof, and not been entangled in its\nsnares, nor hindered in the work he was engaged in, by the afflictions\nand injurious treatment that he met with from it, but as he procured for\nthem those victories over it, whereby they shall be made _more than\nconquerors through him that loved them_.\n\n3. Christ\u2019s kingly government is, and shall more eminently appear to be\nexercised towards his enemies, in punishing them for all their\nrebellions against him. There are reserves of vengeance laid up in\nstore, and more vials of wrath, which shall be poured forth on Satan,\nand all the powers of darkness, which they are not without some terrible\napprehensions of, from the knowledge they have of God as a just judge;\nupon which account they are said to believe and tremble, James ii. 19.\nand as for all his other enemies, he will _break them with a rod of\niron; he will dash them in pieces like a potter\u2019s vessel_, Psal. ii. 9.\nor bring them forth, and slay them before him, Luke xix. 27. Thus\nconcerning the manner how Christ\u2019s kingly government hath been\nexercised, both towards his people and his enemies; and this leads us to\nconsider,\n\nIII. The various seasons, or ages, in which Christ\u2019s kingly government\nhas been, or shall be exercised, together with the different\ncircumstances relating to the administration of it therein. As soon as\never man fell, and thereby stood in need of a mediator to recover him,\nChrist was revealed, as one who had undertaken his recovery, and, as a\nvictorious king, who should break and destroy that power, that had\nbrought him into subjection to it. Now there are various periods, or\nseasons, in which he has executed his kingly office, or shall continue\nso to do.\n\n1. He did this before his incarnation, during which time his government\nwas visible, as to the effects thereof, as extended to all those who\nwere saved under the Old Testament-dispensation: they were subdued and\ndefended by his divine power, that was then exerted, as well as\ndischarged from condemnation, by virtue of the sacrifice, which, in the\nfulness of time, he was to offer for them. We have already shewed how he\nexecuted his prophetical office during this interval;[193] now we must\nconsider him as exercising his kingly office. The majestic way in which\nhe delivered the law from mount Sinai, was a glorious display thereof;\nand the Theocracy, which they were under, which is described, in\nscripture, as a government distinct from, and excelling all others in\nglory, and the subserviency of it to their salvation, was a farther\nevidence that he was their king. This he evinced, at one time, by his\nappearance to Joshua, as the captain of the Lord\u2019s hosts; and at another\ntime it was represented in an emblematical way, when he was seen by the\nprophet Isaiah, as _sitting upon a throne, and his train filling the\ntemple_. And in the book of Psalms, he is frequently acknowledged by the\nchurch as their king; concerning whom it is said, _Thy throne, O God, is\nfor ever and ever; the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre_, Psal.\nxlv. 6. and, in many other places he is described as the _King, the Lord\nof hosts_, not only as predicting the future exercise of his government,\nbut as denoting what he was at that time; concerning whom it was said,\n_Is not the Lord in Zion? Is not her King in her?_ Jer. viii. 19. And\nwhen God declares that he had advanced him to this mediatorial dignity,\nand _set him on his holy hill of Zion, the kings and judges of the\nearth_ are exhorted to _serve him with fear_, and, in token of their\nwillingness to be his subjects, _to kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and\nthey perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little_, Psal.\nii. 6, 10, 12.\n\n2. After his incarnation, when he first came into the world, he was\npublickly owned, by the wise men (who came from the East) as one that\n_was born King of the Jews_, and the gifts which they presented to him\nof gold, frankincense, and myrrh, Matt. ii. 2. compared with ver. 11.\nthe best presents that their country afforded, were designed to signify\nthat homage which was due to him, as one whom God had appointed to be\nthe King of his church, though his external mein, and the circumstances\nof his birth, contained no visible mark of regal dignity. While he\nconversed with his people, in the exercise of his public ministry, he\ngave them frequent intimations hereof, when describing the nature of his\nkingdom, as spiritual, and not of this world; and, when one of his\nfollowers addressed him, as _the Son of God_, and _the King of Israel_,\nhe is so far from reproving him, as ascribing to him a glory that did\nnot belong to him, that he not only commends his faith that was\nexpressed herein, but gives him to understand, that he should have a\ngreater evidence of this truth, when _he should see the heavens opened,\nand the angels of God ascending and descending upon him_, John i. 49-51.\n\nAnd, in the close of his life, when he entered into Jerusalem, with a\ndesign to give himself up to the rage and fury of his enemies,\nprovidence, as it were, extorted a confession of his regal dignity, from\nthe unstable multitude, and, at the same time designed to fulfil what\nwas foretold by the prophet Zechariah, when he says, _Rejoice greatly, O\ndaughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem; behold, thy King\ncometh unto thee; he is just, and having salvation, lowly, and riding\nupon an ass, and upon a colt, the foal of an ass_, Zech. ix. 9. and\ntheir saying, _Hosannah, blessed is the King of Israel, that cometh in\nthe name of the Lord_, John xii. 13. was the result of a present\nconviction, which they had of this matter, though it was not long\nabiding, and hereby they were, as it were, condemned out of their own\nmouth. And, after this, when Pilate asked him this question, in plain\nterms, _Art thou the King of the Jews?_ he publickly professes himself\nto be so; nevertheless, he gives him to understand, that his _kingdom_\nwas _not of this world_, upon this account the apostle says, that\n_before Pontius Pilate he witnessed a good confession_, and styles him,\n_King of kings, and Lord of lords_, 1 Tim. vi. 13, 15.\n\n3. Christ still executes his Kingly office in that glorified state, in\nwhich he now is. This the apostle intimates, when alluding to the custom\nof kings in their solemn triumphs over their enemies, (who throw medals\namongst the people to perpetuate the remembrance thereof, and bestow\ndonatives, or peculiar marks of favour upon this occasion) when he\nspeaks of him, as _ascending up on high_, having _led captivity\ncaptive_, and then _giving gifts unto men_, Eph. iv. 8. In this exalted\nstate there are undeniable proofs of his regal dignity in the blessings\nwhich his church, in this world, receives, as the result of it as well\nas in the honours that are paid him by the inhabitants of heaven. The\nSocinians, indeed, will not allow that he executed his Kingly office on\nearth: but this is contrary to the account we have of his executing it\nin his humbled state, as above mentioned; therefore we must suppose,\nthat when Christ entered into his glory, he did not begin to reign;\nthough, from that time, he has exercised his government in a different\nmanner, upon the account whereof the gospel dispensation, which ensued\nthereon, is called, by way of eminence, _his kingdom_; and, because this\ndispensation began upon his ascension into heaven, it is sometimes\ncalled, in the New Testament, _the kingdom of heaven_.\n\nI need not add much concerning the present exercise of his Kingly\ngovernment, since the greatest part of what has been said, under this\nanswer, has a particular regard to it. It was after his ascension into\nheaven that the gospel-church was established, which is sometimes called\nhis visible kingdom; then it was that the laws and ordinances, by which\nit was to be governed, were made known to it, together with the peculiar\nprivileges that were then bestowed upon it, as the effects of Christ\u2019s\nroyal bounty: then the Spirit was sent, and, by his assistance, the\ngospel was preached to all nations, saving grace plentifully bestowed on\nmultitudes, who were enabled to subject themselves to him, as King of\nsaints; and, in this manner, Christ has hitherto exercised his Kingly\ngovernment, and will do until his second coming.\n\nHere we shall take occasion to consider what is advanced, by several,\nconcerning Christ\u2019s reigning _a thousand years_ on earth, which, they\nsuppose, will intervene between the present administration of the\naffairs of his kingdom, and the saints reigning with him in heaven for\never. This opinion has not only the countenance of many ancient writers,\nwho have defended it, but it seems to be founded on several scriptures;\nso that we shall be led, in considering this subject, rather to enquire\ninto the true sense of those scriptures, that speak of Christ\u2019s reigning\non earth, than to deny that he will, in any sense, reign therein, in a\nway circumstantially different from that in which he now administers the\naffairs of his kingdom. And here we shall consider what is advanced, by\nsome, concerning this matter, who assert many things relating thereunto,\nwhich stand in need of stronger arguments to defend them, than have\nhitherto been brought; and then we shall consider how far we have\nground, from scripture, to say, that Christ shall reign here on earth,\nand all his saints that shall live therein, with him, and what we may\nconclude to be the true sense of those scriptures that are brought in\ndefence of Christ\u2019s personal reign.\n\nThe opinions of those that treat on this subject, are so different, that\nto speak distinctly to them all, would be too great a diversion from my\ngeneral design: and this also renders it more difficult, to lay down the\nstate of the question in a few words. However, I shall briefly attempt\nthis; and, that we may proceed with greater clearness, shall consider\nwhat is asserted, by several writers, concerning Christ\u2019s personal reign\non earth, which shall be in the latter end of the world, and is to\ncontinue, from the time that it commences, _a thousand years_.\n\n(1.) Some have supposed, that this _thousand years\u2019_ reign includes in\nit the whole compass of time, in which Christ shall judge the world.\nThis is called, indeed, in scripture, _a day_; but it cannot reasonably\nbe supposed that it shall take up no more than the space of twenty-four\nhours; and therefore they suppose, that it shall contain the space of _a\nthousand years_, which they found partly on that scripture, in Psal. xc.\n4. _A thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past_;\nand more especially on the apostle\u2019s words, in 2 Pet. iii. 8. _One day\nis with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day_;\nand this they apply, in particular to the day of judgment, which is\nspoken of in the verse immediately foregoing; and, since we have ground\nto conclude that this shall be done on earth, and also, that, when\nChrist judges the world, it may be truly said, he exercises his Kingly\noffice in a most glorious manner; therefore they conclude, from hence,\nthat this thousand years\u2019 reign includes in it all the time that he will\ntake up in judging the world: but, even in this matter, all do not agree\nin their sentiments; for some think, that, in this judicial process,\nnone are to be judged but the saints, who, being acquitted by him, are\nsaid to reign with him; and, in order hereunto, that they shall be\nraised from the dead, which they suppose to be meant by the _first\nresurrection_, and that the rest shall not be raised till the thousand\nyears are finished, Rev. xx. 5. But this seems not agreeable to the\naccount we have elsewhere, in scripture, of Christ\u2019s raising the dead,\ncoming to judgment, and determining the state, both of the righteous and\nwicked, as what is to be done in or near the same time, each of these\nbeing distinct branches of the same solemnity. And that which makes this\nopinion still more improbable, is, because in the same scripture in\nwhich we have an account of this thousand years\u2019 reign, it immediately\nfollows, that, when these years shall be expired, Satan will be loosed\nout of his prison, and suffered _to deceive the nations_; and then we\nread of other enemies which the church shall have, concerning whom it is\nsaid, that _they shall be gathered together to battle_; and it is\nfarther said, that they went _up on the breadth of the earth, and\ncompassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city_; and all\nthis is to be done between the end of the _thousand years reign_ and the\ngeneral judgment, when _the dead, small and great, shall be raised, the\nbooks opened, and all judged out of those things that are written\ntherein, according to their works_; therefore this opinion concerning\nthe thousand years\u2019 reign, including in it the time in which Christ\nshall appear, in this lower world, to judge his saints, does not seem to\nbe the sense of that scripture on which this opinion is supposed to be\nfounded, Rev. xx. 12.\n\n(2.) The more common opinion, which is defended by several ancient and\nmodern Chiliasts, or Millenaries, as they are generally called, is, that\nour Lord Jesus Christ shall, some time in the last days, before he comes\nto the final judgment, appear in this lower world, in his human nature,\nand dwell and reign among the inhabitants thereof, in such a way, as may\nrender it a kind of middle state between that which the church is now\nin, and heaven; more glorious than the former, and yet very much\ninferior to the latter. And here they suppose,\n\n_1st_, That there are several things which shall go immediately before\nit, as tending to usher in the glory of that kingdom, to wit, the\nconversion of the Jews, which is to be effected at once. And, in order\nhereunto, some conclude that the dispensation of miracles shall be\nrevived; which they argue from hence, in that all the remarkable changes\nthat have formerly been made in the affairs of the church, have been\nintroduced by miracles; and the Jews, more than any other nation in the\nworld, have been desirous of a conviction by such a method as this.\n\nMoreover, it is also supposed, that, at the same time, those scriptures\nthat foretel a greater fulness of the Gentiles, or the conversion of\nmany, who still remain in the darkness of heathenism, shall have their\naccomplishment in an eminent degree; and this shall also proceed from,\nand be attended with a greater degree of the effusion of the Spirit, and\nthe consequence hereof will be a more glorious light shining throughout\nthe world, than has ever done; and that these two, the Jews and\nGentiles, shall be both joined together, in one body, under Christ,\ntheir visible and glorious Head.\n\nMoreover, some suppose, that Jerusalem, and the countries round about\nit, shall be the principal seat of this kingdom, to which these new\nconverts shall repair; so that, as there the glorious scene of the\ngospel was first opened, in that part of the earth, the glory of\nChrist\u2019s personal reign shall begin. Others, to this, add, that, at this\ntime, the temple at Jerusalem shall be built, which shall far exceed\nthat which was built by Solomon, in glory; and that the _New Jerusalem_\nshall be also _built_ and adorned in a magnificent way, agreeable to\nwhat is said of it in scripture, Rev. xxi. which they understand in a\nliteral sense. In this I must take leave to differ from them, though not\nin what was but now hinted, concerning the conversion of the Jews, and\nthe fulness of the Gentiles going before it.\n\n_2dly_, Though some suppose that the general conflagration, spoken of by\nthe apostle Peter, 2 Pet. iii. 7, 13. shall be after this thousand years\nreign, which is certainly the more probable opinion; yet others have\nconcluded, that it shall be before it and that _the new earth, wherein\ndwelleth righteousness_, which believers _according to God\u2019s promise\nlook for_, shall arise out of the ruins of the old. Thus a late writer\nsays,[194] who advances many things concerning the ante-diluvian world,\nas well as this new one, with an elegancy of style, that is very\nentertaining, and, in many instances, runs counter to the sentiments of\nall that went before him, than which a more ingenious romance is hardly\nextant: but since, for the most part, he brings in scripture to give\ncountenance to what he advances, and lays down a peculiar scheme\nconcerning this Millennium, I cannot wholly pass it over. He supposes,\nthat the reign of Christ, on earth, shall be ushered in by a general\nconflagration, in which all the inhabitants thereof must necessarily be\nconsumed, and the world reduced into a second chaos by fire; and, as his\nmaster De Cartes describes the form of the world when first created, and\nhow the various particles of matter were disposed, in order to its being\nbrought to that perfection to which it arrived afterwards, so he\ndescribes the form to which the world shall be framed; which, when done,\nbeing at a loss to find out inhabitants for it, he supposes that the\ndead shall be raised; to which he applies what is said in scripture\nconcerning the _first resurrection_, and then this thousand years reign\nbegins: but he is more at a loss, as might easily be supposed, to\naccount for Gog and Magog, the enemies of the church, which shall give\nit great disturbance at the close thereof; and, since he cannot easily\nsuppose them to be raised from the dead for this end, he fancies that\nthey shall spring out of the earth; which so much embarrasses his\nscheme, that, whatsoever scriptures he brings in defence of it, it must\nbe supposed by impartial judges, to be attended with the greatest\nabsurdities.\n\n_3dly_, There are others, who suppose that the general conflagration\nshall not be till the end of the thousand years reign; nevertheless they\nconclude, that the dead shall be raised, and more particularly those who\nare designed to reign with Christ. And, with respect to this, the\nsentiments of persons are somewhat different, inasmuch as some suppose\nthat none shall be raised, at this time, but those who have suffered\nmartyrdom for Christ\u2019s sake; and that this is the meaning of that\nexpression, _I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness\nof Jesus, and the word of God, and they lived and reigned a thousand\nyears_, Rev. xx. 4. Others suppose, that because many, who have not\nsuffered death for Christ\u2019s sake, have, in other respects, passed\nthrough an equal number of persecutions and reproaches in life, and were\nready to suffer martyrdom, had they been called to it, these are not\nexcluded; and therefore that all the saints shall be raised from the\ndead, as the apostle says, _The dead in Christ shall rise first_, 1\nThess. iv. 16. that is, a thousand years before the wicked; and that\nthis is intended by what is styled the _first resurrection_; they shall\nrise, not to be received immediately into heaven, but shall be first\nopenly acknowledged, and acquitted by Christ, the Judge of all, and then\nreign with him on earth, throughout the whole period of time.\n\n_4thly_, Others suppose, that, during this thousand years\u2019 reign, the\npublic ordinances of God\u2019s worship, namely, the preaching of the word,\nand the administration of the sacraments, and the present order and\ndiscipline of churches, shall entirely cease; to which they accommodate\nthe sense of some scriptures, to wit, that in which it is said,\nconcerning the New Jerusalem, that _there was no temple therein_ that\n_the city had no need of the sun, nor of the moon to shine in it_, Rev.\nxxi. 22, 23. and elsewhere, when the apostle says, that the church, in\ncelebrating the Lord\u2019s Supper, was to to _shew forth the Lord\u2019s death\ntill he come_, 1 Cor. xi. 26. they suppose that the meaning is, that\nthey were to do this till he shall come to reign on earth, and no\nlonger.\n\n_5thly_, There are some who entertain very carnal notions of the saints\nreigning with Christ, inconsistent with perfect holiness; and speak of\npleasures, which they shall then enjoy, that are more agreeable to\nMahomet\u2019s paradise, than the life of saints, admitted to such\nprivileges, which they suppose them to be partakers of. And some proceed\nyet farther in their wild and ungrounded fancies, when they think that a\nsmall number of the wicked shall be left in the world, to be, as it\nwere, slaves to them; all which are inconsistent with the spirituality\nof Christ\u2019s kingdom. Such extremes as these, many, who, have defended\nChrist\u2019s personal reign on earth, have unwarily run into; among whom\nthere are some ancient writers, who have led the way to others, who\nspeak of it as the generally received opinion of the fathers in the\nthree first centuries[195]; but these are not much to be depended on, as\nto the sense they give of scripture, any more than those who have lived\nin latter ages, especially in those things which they advance, that seem\nto be inconsistent with the spirituality of Christ\u2019s kingdom: But if\nthis account, which they give of it, appear to be contrary thereunto,\nwhat they farther say concerning it, and others, who improve upon their\nscheme, is much more remote from it, when they speak of the building of\nJerusalem, and that being the principal seat of Christ\u2019s reign; and of\nseveral things relating to it, which are of such a nature, and contain\nso great a reproach on Christ\u2019s kingdom, that I forbear to mention them;\nand there are very few who will think them consistent with the character\nof saints. This gave disgust to Augustin, who, at first, adhered to this\nopinion, but afterwards was justly prejudiced against it[196].\n\nThus we have given a brief account of the different sentiments of many,\nwho treat in their writings of Christ\u2019s personal reign, of which some\nare maintained by persons of great worth and judgment, and seem more\nagreeable to the sense of those scriptures, that are brought to defend\nthem, than others; these ought to be farther considered, that it may\nappear whether they are just or no. As for those, which can hardly be\ncalled any other than romantic, and have little more to support them,\nthan the ungrounded conjecture of those who advance them, and are so far\nfrom agreeing with the general scope and design of scripture, that they\ncontain a reflection on the methods of Christ\u2019s government, rather than\nan expedient to advance it; these carry in themselves their own\nconfutation, and nothing farther need be said in opposition to them.\n\nBefore we proceed to consider how far Christ\u2019s reign on earth may be\ndefended, and in what other respects several things, which are asserted,\nrelating to some circumstances, that they suppose, will attend it, do\nnot seem to be sufficiently founded on scripture, we shall take leave to\npremise some things, in general, relating to the method in which this\nsubject ought to be managed.\n\n1. So far as the scripture plainly gives countenance to this doctrine in\ngeneral, _viz._ that the administration of Christ\u2019s government in this\nlower world, shall be attended with great glory, and shall abundantly\ntend to the advantage of his church, this is a subject of too great\nimportance to be passed over with neglect, as though we had no manner of\nconcern therein, or it were a matter of mere speculation; for certainly\nall scripture is written for our learning, and ought to be studied and\nimproved by us, to the glory of God, and our own edification. And as for\nthose texts that speak of Christ\u2019s government, as exercised in this\nworld, they contain matters in them not only awful and sublime, but our\nhaving just ideas thereof, will be a direction to our faith, when we\npray for the further advancement of Christ\u2019s kingdom, as we are bound\ndaily to do.\n\n2. We must take heed that we do not give too great scope to our fancy,\nby framing imaginary schemes of our own, and then bringing in scripture,\nnot without some violence offered to the sense thereof, to give\ncountenance to them; nor ought we to acquiesce in such a sense of\nscripture, brought to support this doctrine, as is evidently contrary to\nother scriptures or to the nature and spirituality of Christ\u2019s\ngovernment.\n\n3. We must take it for granted, that some of those scriptures, which\nrelate to this matter, are hard to be understood, and therefore a humble\nmodesty becomes us, in treating on this subject, rather than to censure\nthose who differ from us, as though they were departed from that faith,\nwhich is founded on the most obvious and plain sense of scripture,\nespecially if they maintain nothing that is derogatory to the glory of\nChrist; which rule we shall endeavour to observe, in what remains to be\nconsidered on this subject. And since most allow that there is a sense,\nin which Christ\u2019s kingdom shall be attended with greater circumstances\nof glory than it is at present, we shall proceed to shew,\n\n(1.) How Christ\u2019s kingdom shall be advanced, in this lower world, beyond\nwhat it is at present, and that in such a way as agrees very well with\nthe sense of several scriptures relating thereunto, without giving into\nsome extremes, which many have done, who have plead for Christ\u2019s\npersonal reign on earth, in such a way, in which it cannot easily be\ndefended. We freely own, as what we think agreeable to scripture,\n\n_1st_, That, as Christ has, in all ages, displayed his glory, as King of\nthe Church, as has been before observed; so we have ground to conclude,\nfrom scripture, that the administration of his government in this world,\nbefore his coming to judgment, will be attended with greater\nmagnificence, more visible marks of glory, and various occurrences of\nprovidence, that shall tend to the welfare and happiness of his church,\nin a greater degree, than has hitherto been beheld, or experienced by\nit, since it was first planted by the apostles, after his ascension into\nheaven; which we think to be the sense in general, of those scriptures,\nboth in the Old and New Testament, which speak of the latter-day glory.\nSome of the prophets seem to look farther than the first preaching of\nthe gospel, and the glorious display of Christ\u2019s government that\nattended it, which was, in part, an accomplishment of some of their\npredictions relating hereunto, inasmuch as there are some expressions,\nwhich they make use of, that seem as yet not to have had their\naccomplishment: Thus the prophet Isaiah, when he speaks of _the glory of\nthe Lord as arising_, and being _seen upon the_ church, and _the\nGentiles coming to this light, and kings to the brightness_ thereof.\nIsa. lx. 1. _& seq._ and many other things to the same purpose, which\ndenote the glorious privileges that the gospel-church should enjoy:\nThough this, in a spiritual sense, may, in a great measure, be supposed\nto be already accomplished; yet there are other things, which he fortels\nconcerning it, which do not yet appear to have had their accomplishment:\nas when he says, that _thy gates shall be open continually; they shall\nnot be shut day nor night_, ver. 11. And the same mode of speaking is\nused, concerning the New Jerusalem, in Rev. xxi. 25. as denoting the\nchurch\u2019s being perfectly free from all those afflictive dispensations of\nprovidence, which would tend to hinder the preaching and success of the\ngospel; and that _violence should be no more heard in thy land, wasting\nnor destruction in thy borders_, ver. 18. by which he intends the\nchurch\u2019s perfect freedom from all persecution; and that _the sun shall\nbe no more thy light by day, neither for brightness shall the moon give\nlight unto thee; but the Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light,\nand thy God thy glory_. Ver. 18, 19. This is so far from having been yet\naccomplished, that it seems to refer to the same thing, that is\nmentioned concerning the New Jerusalem, Rev. xxi. 23. and almost\nexpressed in the same words, which, if it be not a metaphorical\ndescription of the heavenly state, has a peculiar reference to the\nlatter-day glory; and, when the prophet farther adds, that _thy people\nshall be all righteous_, as denoting that holiness shall almost\nuniversally obtain in the world, as much as iniquity has abounded in it,\nthis does not appear to have been yet accomplished.\n\nAgain, when the prophet Micah speaks of _the Mountain of the Lord_,\nbeing _established in the top of the mountains, and exalted above the\nhills_, and that _people should flow unto it_, Micah iv. 1. though this,\nand some other things that he there mentions, may refer to the first\npreaching of the gospel, and success thereof; yet what he farther adds,\nthat _they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears\ninto pruning-hooks; and nation shall not lift up a sword against nation,\nneither shall they learn war any more; but they shall sit every man\nunder his vine, and under his fig-tree, and none shall make them\nafraid_, ver. 3, 4. This prophecy, so far as it may be taken otherwise\nthan in a spiritual sense, seems to imply a greater degree of peace and\ntranquility than the gospel-church has hitherto enjoyed; therefore when\nhe says, that _this shall be in the last days_, ver. 1. we have reason\nto conclude, that he does not mean barely the last, or gospel\ndispensation, which commenced on our Saviour\u2019s ascension into heaven,\nbut the last period thereof, _viz._ that time which we are now\nconsidering.\n\nAs to the account we have hereof in the New Testament, especially in\nmany places in the book of the Revelation, that speak of _the kingdoms\nof the world becoming the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ_, and\nof his _taking to himself his great power and reigning_, Rev. xi. 15,\n17. and what is spoken concerning the thousand years reign, chap. v. 20.\nwhatever be the sense hereof, as to some circumstances of glory that\nshall attend this administration of the affairs of his kingdom, it\ncertainly has not yet had its accomplishment, and therefore leads us to\nexpect that it shall be attended with greater degrees of glory\nredounding to himself, which we call the latter-day glory.\n\n_2dly_, Many privileges will redound to the church hereby; for as Christ\nis said to reign on earth, so the saints are represented as reigning\nwith him, as they say, _Thou hast made us unto our God kings and\npriests, and we shall reign on the earth_, Rev. v. 10. and elsewhere,\nwhen the apostle speaks of Christ\u2019s reigning _a thousand years_, adds,\nthat _they shall reign with him_, Rev. xx. 6. which cannot be taken in\nany other sense than for a spiritual reign, agreeable to Christ\u2019s\nkingdom, which is not of this world; therefore,\n\n_3dly_, We have, from hence, sufficient ground to conclude, that when\nthese prophecies shall have their accomplishment, the interest of Christ\nshall be the prevailing interest in the world, which it has never yet\nbeen in all respects, so that godliness shall be as much valued and\nesteemed, as it has been decried, and as universally; and it shall be\nreckoned as great an honour to be a Christian, as it has, in the most\ndegenerate age of the church, been matter of reproach. And to this we\nmay add, that the church shall have a perfect freedom from persecution\nin all parts of the world; and a greater glory shall be put on the\nordinances, and more success attend them, than has hitherto been\nexperienced. In short there shall be, as it were, an universal spread of\nreligion and holiness to the Lord, throughout the world.\n\n_4thly_, When this glorious dispensation shall commence, we have\nsufficient ground to conclude, that, the Anti-christian powers having\nbeen wholly subdued, the Jews shall be converted. This may be inferred\nfrom the order in which this is foretold, in the book of the Revelation,\nin which the fall and utter ruin of Babylon is predicted, in chap.\nxviii. And, after this, we read in chap. xix. of the _marriage of the\nLamb being come; and his wife, as having made herself ready_; and others\nwho are styled _blessed, are called to the marriage-supper_, in ver. 7,\n9. This, as an ingenious and learned writer observes[197], seems to be a\nprediction of the call of the Jews, and of the saints of the faithful,\nnamely, the gospel church, who were converted before this time, being\nmade partakers of the spiritual privileges of Christ\u2019s kingdom, together\nwith them, and so invited to the _marriage-supper_; accordingly, by the\n_Lamb\u2019s wife_, is intended the converted Jews, who are considered as\nespoused to him; and inasmuch as _their being ignorant of God\u2019s\nrighteousness, and going about to establish a righteousness of their\nown, and not submitting themselves to the righteousness of God_, Rom. x.\n3. occasioned their being rejected; so, when they are converted, and\nthese new espousals are celebrated, it is particularly observed, that\nthis righteousness shall be their greatest glory, the robe that they\nshall be adorned with; so that when this bride is said to have made\nherself ready, it follows, in Rev. xix. 8. _To her was granted, that she\nshould be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white; for the fine linnen is\nthe righteousness of the saints_. This prophecy, being placed\nimmediately before the account of the _thousand years\u2019 reign_, in chap.\nxx. gives ground to conclude, that it shall be before it, or an\nintroduction to it.\n\n_Object._ I am sensible there are some who question whether those\nprophecies, especially such as are found in the Old Testament, that\nforetell the conversion of the Jews, had not their full accomplishment\nin the beginning of the gospel-state, when many churches were gathered\nout of the Jews, and some of the apostles were sent to exercise their\nministry in those parts of the world, where the greatest number of them\nresided, upon which account Peter is called the apostle of the Jews; for\n_God wrought effectually in him to the apostleship of the circumcision_,\nGal. ii. 8. and he, together with James and John, direct their inspired\nepistles to them in particular.\n\n_Answ._ But to this it may be replied, that there are some scriptures,\nin the New Testament, relating to this matter, which do not seem, as\nyet, to have been accomplished, but respect this glorious\ndispensation, in which there shall be, as it were, an universal\nconversion of them in the latter day; particularly what the apostle\nsays, _If the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world,\nwhat shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?_ Rom. xi.\n15. And he adds, _I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of\nthis mystery, that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the\nfulness of the Gentiles be brought in, and then all Israel shall be\nsaved_, ver. 25, 26. This seems, as yet, not to have been\naccomplished; and as for those scriptures, in the Old Testament, that\npredict many things in favour of the Jewish nation; though I will not\ndeny that many of them had their accomplishment, either in their\nreturn from the Babylonish captivity, or in those that were converted\nin the beginning of the gospel-dispensation, yet I cannot think that\nthey all had; for the prophet Hosea seems to foretell some things that\nare yet to come, when he speaks of them, as being _many days without a\nking, without a prince, without a sacrifice, and without an image, and\nwithout an ephod, and without teraphim_, Hos. iii. 4. which seems to\npoint at the condition in which they now are; and he adds, in the\nfollowing words, _Afterwards the children of Israel shall seek the\nLord their God, and David their king_, to wit, Christ, _and shall fear\nthe Lord and his goodness in the latter days_; which seems to intend\ntheir conversion, which is yet expected.\n\nThus far our faith, as to this matter, may be said to be built on the\nfoundation of the apostles and prophets: but, if we pretend to determine\nthe way, and manner in which this shall be done, we must have recourse\nto uncertain conjectures, instead of solid arguments. That learned\nwriter whom I have before mentioned,[198] gives his opinion about it,\nwhich I will not pretend to disprove, though, indeed the ingenuity\nthereof is more to be valued than its convincing evidence. He supposes\nit shall be somewhat like the conversion of the apostle Paul, by\nChrist\u2019s appearing with a glorious light on earth, and then retiring to\nheaven again: but the accommodating one particular circumstance of\nprovidence, (in which Christ seems to have another end to answer,\nnamely, that Paul might be qualified for the apostleship by this\nextraordinary sight of him) to this matter, as an argument of the Jews\nbeing converted in such a manner, proves nothing at all; therefore the\nbest way is to leave this among the secrets which belong not to us to\nenquire after.[199] Thus concerning the conversion of the Jews, as what\nis expected to go immediately before those glorious times that we are\nspeaking of. And to this we may add,\n\n_5thly_, That there shall be a greater spread of the gospel through the\ndark parts of the earth; and so that scripture, which was but now\nreferred to, concerning the _Gentiles coming to the light_ of this\nglorious morning, or _the forces of the Gentiles coming_ unto the\nchurch, Isa. lx. 3, 5. shall have a fuller accomplishment than hitherto\nit has had; as also another scripture in which the prophet says, that\n_the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters\ncover the sea_, ch. xi. 9. We will not deny but that this had, in part,\nan accomplishment, when the gospel was first preached by the apostles;\nand, indeed, the prophet intimates, that these things shall come to pass\nwhen _a rod shall come out of the stem of Jesse_, ver. 1. that is, after\nChrist\u2019s incarnation, who was of the seed of David, according to the\nflesh. Therefore I cannot but think that those words, _In that day_,\nwhich we often meet with in scripture, ver. 10, 11. signify the whole\ngospel-dispensation, from the beginning thereof to its consummation, in\nChrist\u2019s coming to judgment; and then we may look for some things, which\nthe prophet here foretells, as what should come to pass in one part\nthereof, and other things in another. And as to what respects the\nknowledge of Christ being so extensive, as that it is said to _cover the\nearth_; or Christ\u2019s being elsewhere said to be a _light to the\nGentiles_, though it denote the first success of the gospel in the\nconversion of the Gentiles, it does not argue, that such-like texts\nshall not have a farther accomplishment when those other things shall\ncome to pass, which the prophet mentions in the foregoing verses, under\nthe metaphor of the _wolf dwelling with the lamb_, &c. and other things,\nwhich relate to a more peaceable state of the church, than it has\nhitherto experienced. And it seems sufficiently evident, that, when this\nhappy time shall come, the interest of Christ shall be the prevailing\ninterest in the world, and the glory of his kingdom shall be more\neminently displayed, than, at present, it is. In these respects, we are\nfar from denying the reign of Christ in this lower world, for we think\nit plainly contained in scripture; nevertheless,\n\n(2.) There are several things in their scheme, which we do not think\nsufficiently founded in scripture. As,\n\n_First_, We cannot see sufficient reason to conclude that Christ shall\nappear visibly, or, as they call it, _personally_, in his human nature,\non earth, when he is said eminently to reign therein. If they intended\nnothing else by Christ\u2019s appearing visibly, or personally, but his\nfarther evincing his Mediatorial glory, in the effects of his power and\ngrace, which his church shall experience, as it does now, though in a\nless degree; or if they should say, that some greater circumstances of\nglory will then attend it, this would not be, in the least, denied: but\nmore than this we cannot allow of, for the following reasons:\n\n_1st_, Because the presence of Christ\u2019s human nature, here on earth,\nwould not contribute so much to the church\u2019s spiritual edification and\nhappiness, as his presence, by the powerful influence of his Holy\nSpirit, would do. This is sufficiently evident; for when he dwelt on\nearth, immediately after his incarnation, his ministry was not attended\nwith that success that might have been expected; which gave him occasion\nto complain, as the prophet represents him speaking to this purpose, _I\nhave laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought_, Israel is\n_not gathered_; and, upon this, he is, as it were, comforted with the\nthought, that, notwithstanding, he should _be glorious in the eyes of\nthe Lord_, that is, accepted of, and afterwards glorified by him, and\nthat he _should be given for a light to the Gentiles_, Isa. xlix. 4-6.\nthat is, that the gospel should be preached to all nations, and that\nthen greater success should attend it. Now this is owing to Christ\u2019s\npresence by his Spirit; therefore, if that be poured forth in a more\nplentiful degree on his church it will contribute more to the increase\nof its graces, and spiritual comforts, than his presence, in his human\nnature, could do without it; and therefore it cannot be argued, that\nChrist\u2019s presence, in such a way, is absolutely necessary to the\nflourishing state of the church, to that degree, in which it is expected\nin the latter day. It is true, the presence of his human nature here on\nearth was absolutely necessary, for the impetration of redemption, or\npurchasing his people to himself by his death; but his presence in\nheaven, appearing as an Advocate for them, and, as the result thereof,\nsending down his Spirit, to work all grace in their souls, is, in its\nkind, also necessary. This our Saviour intimates to his disciples,\nimmediately before his ascension into heaven, when he says, _It is\nexpedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter\nwill not come_, John xvi. 7. and, if there be some peculiar advantages\nredounding to the church, from Christ\u2019s continuance in heaven, as well\nas his ascending up into it, it is not reasonable to suppose that the\nchurch\u2019s happiness, as to their spiritual concerns, should arise so much\nfrom his coming from thence into this lower world, as it does from those\ncontinued powerful influences of the Holy Spirit, which are said to\ndepend upon, and be the consequence of his sitting at the right hand of\nGod in heaven.\n\n_2dly_, If he should appear on earth in his human nature, he must either\ndivest himself of that celestial glory, which he is clothed with\ntherein, agreeable to the heavenly state; or else his people, with whom\nhe is supposed to reign, must have such a change made in their nature,\nthat their bodies must be rendered celestial, and their souls enlarged\nin proportion to the heavenly state, otherwise they would not be fit to\nconverse with him, in an immediate way, by reason of the present frailty\nof their nature. Of this we have various instances in scripture: thus\nwhen Moses saw God\u2019s _back-parts_, that is, some extraordinary\nemblematical display of his glory, God tells him, _Thou canst not see my\nface; for no man can see me and live_; and it follows, that while this\nglory passed by him, _God put him in a clift of the rock, and covered\nhim with his hand_, Exod. xxxiii. 20-23. and assigns this as a reason,\nbecause his face should not be seen. He could not, because of the\nimperfection of this present state, behold the extraordinary\nemblematical displays of the divine glory, without the frame of nature\u2019s\nbeing broken thereby; on which occasion Augustine says, understanding\nthe words in this sense, Lord, let me die, that I may see thee.[200]\n\nMoreover, when Christ appeared to the apostle Paul, at his first\nconversion in the glory of his human nature, _he fell to the earth,\ntrembling and astonished_, Acts ix. 6. as not being able to converse\nwith him; and afterwards, when the same apostle was caught up into the\n_third heaven_, and had a view of the glory thereof, this was greater\nthan his frail nature could bear, and therefore he says, that _whether\nhe was in the body, or out of the body, he could not tell_, 2 Cor. xii.\n2. And John, the beloved disciple, who conversed familiarly with him,\nwhen in his humbled state, and _leaned on his breast at supper_, John\nxxi. 20. when he appeared to him, after his ascension, in a glorious\nemblematical way, says, _When I saw him, I fell at his feet, as dead_,\nRev. i. 17. compared with the foregoing verses, and the apostle Paul\nsays, _Though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth\nknow we him so no more_, 2 Cor. v. 16. that is, whilst we are in this\nworld, inasmuch as we are incapable of conversing with him in his\nglorified human nature. This is also agreeable to what the apostle says,\nthat _flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God_, 1 Cor. xv. 50.\nthat is, man, in this present state, cannot enjoy those privileges which\nare reserved for him in heaven, which include in them a conversing with\nChrist, in his human nature, as well as with others, that are\ninhabitants of heaven.\n\n_3dly_, If we suppose that Christ will reign personally on earth, it\nmust be farther enquired; whether they that reign with him, during this\nperiod of time, shall die, or no? If not, that seems contrary to the\nfixed laws of nature, and this present state, as mortal, being opposed\nto a state of immortality and eternal life; but if they shall die, then\nthey must necessarily lose one great advantage, which they now enjoy, in\ndying, namely, _being with Christ_, Phil. i. 23. for when they die, in\nsome respect, they must be said to depart from Christ, and, whatever\nadvantage the presence of the human nature of Christ is of to the\ninhabitants of heaven, that they must be supposed to be deprived of,\nwhilst he is reigning on earth. These, and other things to the same\npurpose, are consequences of Christ\u2019s personal reign, in his human\nnature, on earth; for which reason we cannot acquiesce in their opinion,\nwho maintain it.\n\n_Secondly_, There is another thing, that we cannot approve of, in the\nfore-mentioned scheme, relating to Christ\u2019s thousand years\u2019 reign on\nearth, when they assert several things concerning the conversion of the\nJews, which seem contrary to the analogy of faith. We have before taken\nit for granted that the Jews shall be converted, when this glorious\nreign begins, or immediately before it: but there are several things\nthey add to this, which, we think, they have no ground, from scripture,\nto do; we shall mention two.\n\n(1.) That after the Jews are converted, they shall continue a distinct\nbody of people, governed by their own laws, as they were before Christ\u2019s\nincarnation. But we rather conclude, that they shall be joined to, and\nbecome one body with the Christian church, all marks of distinction\nbeing laid aside, and shall be _grafted into the same olive-tree_, Rom.\nxi. 24. that is, into Christ; and certainly the middle wall of\npartition, which was taken away by Christ, shall never be set up again.\nThis seems to be intended by our Saviour\u2019s words, _There shall be one\nfold, and one shepherd_, John x. 16.\n\n(2.) Besides this, there are several other things, which they assert,\nconcerning the Jews rebuilding the temple, at Jerusalem, and that being\nthe principal seat of Christ\u2019s reign, where the saints shall reside and\nreign with him. As for the temple, that was only designed as a place of\nworship, during the dispensation before Christ\u2019s incarnation, and was,\nin some respects, a type of his dwelling among us in our nature; and as\nfor the temple service, as it is now abolished, it shall continue to be\nso, till the end of the world; and then, what occasion is there for a\ntemple to be built?\n\nAnd as for Jerusalem\u2019s being rebuilt, or the land of Judea\u2019s being the\nprincipal seat of Christ\u2019s kingdom on earth, we humbly conceive it to be\nan ungrounded supposition, or a mistake of the sense of some scriptures\nin the Old Testament, which were literally fulfilled in the building of\nJerusalem, after the Babylonish captivity, and have no reference to any\nthing now to come. And as for the land of Canaan, though it had a glory\nput on it some ages before our Saviour\u2019s incarnation, as being the scene\nof many wonderful dispensations of providence, in favour of that people,\nwhile they remained distinct from all other nations in the world; yet we\ncannot conclude that it shall be a distinct place of residence for them,\nwhen, being converted, they are joined to the Christian church: and\ntherefore the land of Canaan will be no more accounted of, than any\nother part of the world; and, considering also the smallness of the\nplace, we cannot think it sufficient to contain the great number of\nthose, who, together with the Jews, shall be the happy subjects of\nChrist\u2019s kingdom.\n\n_Thirdly_, There is another thing, in which we cannot agree with some\nwho treat of Christ\u2019s reign on earth, namely, when they suppose that the\nsaints, who are to reign with him, are to be in a sinless state, little\nshort of the heavenly. It is true, herein they are much divided in their\nsentiments: but some assert, that they shall be free from all the\nremainders of corruption; and, indeed, their argument leads them to it,\nif we consider the saints as being raised from the dead, and their souls\nbrought back from heaven, into which, when they first entered, they were\nperfectly freed from sin. From hence it will necessarily follow, that\nthere will be no room for the mortification of sin, striving against it,\nor resisting those temptations, which we are now liable to from it: this\nwe cannot conclude to be a privilege that any have ground to expect,\nwhile in this world; and, indeed, those graces, whereby we subdue our\ncorruptions, or strive against temptations, are peculiarly adapted to\nthis present state in opposition to the heavenly.\n\nMoreover, when they say, as some do, that this reign shall be such, as\nthat the saints shall be free from all manner of trouble, internal or\nexternal, personal or relative, at least, so long as Satan is bound,\nthat is, to the end of these thousand years; this seems to be more than\nwhat Christ has given his people ground to expect, who tells them, that,\n_in the world, ye shall have_, at least some degree of _tribulation_,\nJohn xvi. 33. and that they must wait for a perfect freedom from it till\nthey come to heaven.\n\n_Fourthly_, We cannot think, as some do, (as has been before observed),\nthat, during this thousand years\u2019 reign, the preaching of the word, and\nthe administration of the sacraments, shall cease, and all other laws\nand ordinances, which Christ has ordained for the gathering and building\nup of particular churches, for the bringing in his elect, for the\npropagating his name and interest in the world by these methods, shall\nall be discontinued, as there will be no occasion for them. This is what\nwe think altogether ungrounded; for we cannot but suppose, that as soon\nas the whole number of the election of grace are brought in, and thereby\nthe end and design of the preaching the gospel is answered; or when\nChrist can say, Here am I, and all that thou hast given me, he will\npresent them to the Father, and so receive his militant church into a\ntriumphant state in heaven. And, indeed, it seems a very weak\nfoundation, on which this part of their scheme depends, when they say,\nthat those texts which speak of Christ\u2019s _being with_ his ministers _to\nthe end of the world_, Matt. xxviii. 20. and elsewhere, that, in the\nLord\u2019s supper, his death is to be commemorated _till he come_, 1 Cor.\nxi. 26. relate to the coming of Christ in the Millennium, which seems a\nvery much strained and forced sense thereof. And as for that other\nscripture, wherein it is said, that _the New Jerusalem had no temple,\nand that it had no need of the sun, nor the moon, for the glory of the\nLord did lighten it, and the Lamb was the light thereof_, Rev. xxi. 23.\nthis must not he brought to prove that the ordinances of divine worship,\nshall cease during this thousand years\u2019 reign, unless they can first\nmake it appear that the New Jerusalem has reference thereunto; whereas\nsome think that the Holy Ghost is here describing the heavenly state,\nwhich agrees very well with its connexion with what is mentioned in the\nforegoing chapter; and if this be the sense thereof, the glory which the\nchurch shall then arrive to, is such as shall be after the final\njudgment, and consequently it is a description of the glorious state of\nChrist\u2019s kingdom in heaven, rather than here on earth.\n\nThus having considered what we think to be the general design of those\nscriptures, which speak of Christ\u2019s reigning in or over the earth, and\nof the happy state of the church at that time; and, on the other hand,\nendeavoured to prove, that several additional circumstances, which, some\nsuppose, will attend it, are not sufficiently founded on scripture, and,\nin some respects, seem inconsistent with the spirituality of Christ\u2019s\nkingdom, and, with the ground we have to expect, that the present mode\nof administration, and the laws and ordinances thereof, shall continue\nas long as the world endures: we shall now consider the sense they give\nof some scriptures, on which the main stress of their argument depends,\ntogether with the inconclusiveness of their way of reasoning from them,\nand also in what sense we apprehend those scriptures are to be\nunderstood.\n\n1. As to what concerns the _first resurrection_, which they found on\nthat scripture in Rev. xx. 6. _Blessed and holy is he that hath a part\nin the first resurrection, on such the second death shall have no power,\nbut they shall be priests of God, and of Christ, and shall reign with\nhim a thousand years_: a learned and judicious writer[201] supposes,\nthat the first resurrection shall be only of the martyrs, and that it is\nto be taken in a literal sense, and that this shall open the scene of\nChrist\u2019s thousand years\u2019 reign, and that the second resurrection shall\nbe at the close thereof, in which the whole world shall be raised from\nthe dead, and then follows the final judgment: but he differs from many\nof the ancient and modern Chiliasts, in that he says, he dares not so\nmuch as imagine that Christ shall visibly converse with men on earth;\nfor his kingdom ever hath been, and shall be, a kingdom, which is of\nsuch a nature, that his throne and kingly residence is in heaven; and\nthough the deceased martyrs shall re-assume their bodies, and reign, yet\nit shall be in heaven; whereas the saints, who shall be then living, and\nhave not worshipped the beast, nor his image, nor received his mark,\nthese shall reign on earth; for he supposes, that scripture, that\nrelates to this matter, to contain a vision of two distinct things,\nnamely, one respecting those that _were beheaded for the witness of\nJesus_, and these lived and reigned with Christ, but not on earth; the\nother respecting those, who, though they had not suffered, had _not\nworshipped the beast nor his image_. These also reigned during this\nthousand years, not in heaven, but on earth. These are considered, as in\ntheir way to heaven; the other, as received into the heavenly country,\nas a peculiar prerogative conferred upon them, as the reward of their\nmartyrdom; and this first resurrection he supposes to be against no\narticle of faith, but may be as well defended, in the literal sense\nthereof, as the resurrection we read of in Matt. xxvii. 52, 53. in which\nit is said, that _the graves were opened, and many bodies of the saints,\nwhich slept, arose, and came out of their graves, after Christ\u2019s\nresurrection_; and, with a becoming modesty, he cites Augustin\u2019s words\nto this purpose,[202] that if nothing more were intended hereby, but\nthat the delights of this kingdom were spiritual, the opinion would be\ntolerable, and that that father was once of that judgment. Thus he says\nas much as can be said in defence of this opinion; and nothing is\nwanting to support his argument, but sufficient evidence, that the text\nmust necessarily be taken in a literal sense.\n\nBut when others proceed much farther, and conclude that Christ shall\nappear visibly on earth, and that the design of the first resurrection\nis, that they, who shall be raised from the dead, should live here on\nearth; this we see far less reason to conclude to be the sense of those\nwords, and accordingly shall take leave to consider what may be said in\nopposition to it.\n\nTherefore, if they shall be raised, their bodies must either be\ncorruptible and mortal, or incorruptible and immortal; to suppose that\nthey shall be raised corruptible and mortal, and consequently liable to\nthe other infirmities of life, is to suppose their resurrection to be of\nthe same kind with that of Lazarus, and others that were raised by our\nSaviour: but this is so disagreeable to the character of saints, raised\nfrom the dead to reign with Christ, that it is not generally asserted by\nthose who treat on this subject. Therefore they must be raised\nincorruptible and immortal; and, if so, it will follow from hence, that\nthis world will not be a place fit for their abode; for they shall be\nraised with celestial bodies, and so fitted to inhabit the heavenly\nmansions; neither will those accommodations, which this earth affords,\nthe food it produces, or those other conveniences which we enjoy\ntherein, by the blessing of providence, be agreeable to persons who are\nraised up in a state of perfection, as they must be supposed to be, or,\nas the apostle styles it, _raised in glory_. And, since they are\nappointed to live and converse with men in this lower world, I cannot\nsee how there can be any conversation between them and others, who\ncontinue to live in this world, not, like them raised from the dead, but\nretaining their present mortal frame. If _their vile bodies_, as the\napostle speaks concerning the bodies of the saints, when raised from the\ndead, _shall be fashioned like unto Christ\u2019s glorious body_, Phil. iii.\n12. how can weak frail creatures intimately converse with them? And if\nit be said, that they shall not be raised with such a glory, but that\nthis shall be deferred till they are translated to heaven, as was true\nwith respect to our Saviour\u2019s human nature, after his resurrection;\nthough this be possible, yet it seems not agreeable to the account we\nhave of the circumstances of glory, with which the saints shall be\nraised from the dead.\n\nBut that which seems to make this opinion more improbable, is, that it\nis inconsistent with that state of blessedness, into which they have\nbeen once admitted, namely, in their souls, wherein they have been in\nthe immediate vision and fruition of God; as travellers arrived to their\njourney\u2019s end, and wanting nothing to complete their blessedness but\ntheir resurrection; and, now they are supposed to be raised from the\ndead; yet their blessedness is diminished, by their being appointed to\nlive in this lower world, and, as we may say to leave that better\ncountry, in which they have been, to re-assume the character and\ncondition of pilgrims and sojourners upon earth.\n\nTo this it will be objected, that we may as reasonably suppose, that\nthese saints shall be raised in circumstances, fit to converse with the\nrest of the world, as any that have been raised from the dead have\nformerly been. I cannot deny but that this is possible; but yet it does\nnot seem probable, inasmuch as they shall not be raised from the dead\nfor the same end and design that others have been, that the power of God\nmight be illustrated, or some contested truth confirmed by this miracle;\nbut that some special honour, or privilege, might be conferred on them,\nas the reward of their former sufferings: but this is disagreeable to\ntheir being raised in such a state, as that their happiness is thereby\ndiminished.\n\nMoreover, what valuable end is answered by this their change of\ncondition, which might in some measure tend to justify the assertion?\nMust they live here, that they might perform an extraordinary ministry,\nto promote the edification of their mortal brethren, whom they found\nliving upon earth? This was not absolutely necessary, for God has\nappointed other ways for the edification of his church; and, if he did\nnot think fit, before, to send down ministers, to preach the gospel,\nfrom heaven, to them, but ordained the common method of preaching it by\nothers, less qualified for this work, who are subject to like\ninfirmities with those to whom they preach, why should we suppose such\nan alteration in the method of divine providence on this particular\noccasion?\n\nAnd if we suppose that they shall continue on earth till Christ\u2019s\nappearing to judgment, then it must be argued, that they were sent here\nnot only to be helpers of the faith of others, who live therein, but to\nbe exposed, in common with them, to a second warfare upon earth; not,\nindeed, with flesh and blood, but with those who are represented in the\nsame chapter, in which the first resurrection, and thousand years\u2019\nreign, are mentioned, as _compassing the camp of the saints about, and\nthe beloved city_; and therefore they are called back from a triumphant\nto a militant state.\n\nIf it be said, that they shall be admitted into heaven before this\nbattle begins, that can hardly be supposed; for if God send them to be\ncompanions with his mortal saints, in their prosperous state, will he\ncall them away when the time of their greatest danger approaches, in\nwhich their presence might be of the greatest service to their brethren,\nwho are left to struggle with these difficulties? Therefore, upon the\nwhole, we cannot suppose that any shall, in a literal sense, be raised\nfrom the dead, till this glorious, though spiritual reign of Christ\nshall be at an end, and the day of judgment draws nigh, which is\nagreeable to the general scope of all those scriptures, which speak of\nthe resurrection and final judgment.\n\n_Object._ But to this it will be objected, that the scripture elsewhere\nintimates, that there shall be two resurrections; for the apostle says,\nin 1 Thes. iv. 16. that _the dead in Christ shall rise first_; therefore\nwhy may not this resurrection be understood in the same sense with that\nmentioned in Rev. xx. which has been before considered?\n\n_Answ._ We do not deny but that this resurrection, which the apostle\nspeaks of, must be taken in a literal sense; but let it be observed,\nthat he does not here mention any thing of the thousand years\u2019 reign,\nbut of the day of judgment, when _Christ shall descend from heaven with\na shout, and with the voice of the arch-angel_, with which the glory of\nthat day shall begin, and then the dead shall be raised, in which the\nsaints and faithful shall have the pre-eminence; they shall rise first,\nthat is, before others, mentioned in the following verse, _that are\nalive, who shall be caught up with them in the clouds_. And this shall\nalso be done, before the wicked shall be raised, to the end that, when\nChrist appears, _they_, as it is said elsewhere, _may appear with him in\nglory_; and that they may bear a part in the solemnity of that day, and\nbe happy in his presence; when others are raised to shame and\neverlasting contempt, and filled with the utmost confusion and distress.\n\nMoreover, this first resurrection of those that died in Christ, is not\nparticularly applied to them that suffered martyrdom for him, much less\nis there any account of its being a thousand years before the general\nresurrection; therefore it may very well be understood of a resurrection\na very short time before it, and consequently gives no countenance to\nthe opinion, which has been before considered, concerning this\nresurrection, as going before the reign of Christ on earth.\n\n2. There is another scripture brought in defence of another part of\ntheir scheme, taken from the apostle\u2019s words, in Rom. viii. 21-23. where\nhe speaks of the _creatures\u2019_ present _bondage_, and future deliverance,\nand their _waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of their\nbodies_, which, they suppose, will have its accomplishment, when this\nreign of Christ begins: but I cannot think that the apostle, in that\nscripture, intends any thing else, but that the whole creation is liable\nat present, to the curse, consequent upon man\u2019s fall; and that the\ndeliverance he speaks of, shall be at the general resurrection, when the\nsaints shall be raised immortal and incorruptible, which is what they\nnow wait and hope for.\n\nThus we have considered the sense that is given of some scriptures, by\nthose who understand the reign of Christ on earth, as attended with\nvarious circumstances, which we cannot readily allow of; and shewed,\nthat some of those texts, which are usually brought to support that\nparticular scheme, have reference to the return of the Jews from\ncaptivity,[203] and others, that predict their building of Jerusalem,\nand the temple there, Jer. xxix. 5. Isa. xliv. 28. and the setting up\ntheir civil and religious policy, had their accomplishment after their\nreturn from the Babylonish captivity; and that those, which seem to look\nfarther, and respect some privileges which they shall enjoy in the last\ndays, will be fulfilled, when they are converted to Christianity, and\npartakers of many spiritual privileges, in common with the\ngospel-church; therefore I need only mention two scriptures more, which\nwe understand in a sense very different from what some do, who treat of\nChrist\u2019s reign on earth. As,\n\n_1st_, That in which we have an account of the general conflagration,\nwhich, as was before observed, some few, who give too great scope to\ntheir wit and fancy, beyond all the bounds of modesty, and without\nconsidering those absurdities that will follow from it, have maintained\nthat it shall be immediately before Christ\u2019s reign on earth begins: the\nscripture they bring for that purpose, is that in 2 Pet. iii. 10, 13. in\nwhich the apostle says, that _the heavens shall pass away with a great\nnoise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat; the earth also,\nand the works that are therein, shall be burnt up. Nevertheless we,\naccording to his promise, look for new heavens, and a new earth, wherein\ndwelleth righteousness_. This scripture, it must be confessed, is hard\nto be understood. We are far from thinking, as some do, that it is only\na metaphorical description of some remarkable providences, tending to\nthe ruin of Christ\u2019s enemies, and the advantage of his people; certainly\nthe words are to be taken in a literal sense; for the apostle had been\nspeaking, in the foregoing verses, of the _old world_, which, _being\noverflown with water, perished_; which is, without doubt, to be taken in\na literal sense. And now he speaks, as some call it, of a second deluge,\nwhich shall be not by water, but by fire,[204] _in which the heavens and\nthe earth shall pass away_, or be _dissolved_, that is, changed, as to\nthe form thereof, though not annihilated. By _the heavens and the\nearth_, the learned Mede well understands that part of the frame of\nnature, that was subjected to the curse, or that is inhabited by\nChrist\u2019s enemies, and includes in it the earth, water, and air, but not\nthe heavenly bodies, which are not only at a vast distance from it, but\nit is little more than a point, if compared to them for magnitude. And\nhe also (notwithstanding some peculiarities held by him, as before\nmentioned, relating to the Millennium) justly observes, that this\nconflagration shall not be till the end of the world, and consequently\nit shall be immediately before the day of judgment; and, indeed, the\napostle intimates as much, when he speaks of this awful providence, as\n_reserved to the day of judgment, and perdition of ungodly men_, in ver.\n7. The main difficulty to be accounted for, is, what is meant by these\n_new heavens, and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness_, which\nare appointed as an habitation for the righteous. Concerning which, if I\nmay be allowed to give my sense thereof, with that humility and modesty\nthat the difficulty of the subject calls for, I cannot think that there\nis any absurdity, if we suppose, that, by these _new heavens and new\nearth_, the apostle means, that the form of them shall be so changed, as\nthat they shall be an apartment of heaven, in which, together with those\nother parts of the frame of nature, which are designed to be the seat of\nthe blessed, the saints shall dwell and reign with Christ for ever.\n\n_2dly_, We shall now consider the sense that may be given of that\nscripture, in Rev. xx. and more especially what we read therein,\nconcerning the _first resurrection_, in which the martyrs are said _to\nlive_, when this thousand years\u2019 reign begins, and the _rest of the dead\nnot to live, till these thousand years be finished_, in ver. 4, 5. on\nwhich the stress of the whole controversy principally depends. I cannot\nbut adhere to their opinion, who think that these words are to be taken\nin a metaphorical sense; and then they, who were _beheaded for the\nwitness of Jesus_, viz. the martyrs, shall live when Christ\u2019s spiritual\nreign begins, that is, the cause, for which they suffered martyrdom,\nshall be revived: this is supposed to have been in a languishing and\ndying condition, during the reign of Anti-christ, and towards the close\nthereof, to be at the lowest ebb, and, as it were, dead; I say, this\nshall be revived, these martyrs shall, as it were, live again, not in\ntheir own persons, but in their successors, who espouse the same cause.\nBefore this, the enemies of Christ, and his gospel, persecuted and\ntrampled on his cause, insulted the memory of those that had suffered\nfor it; but afterwards, when it is said, _Babylon is fallen, is fallen_,\nthen Christ\u2019s cause revives, and that which was victorious over it dies,\nand shall not rise again, or be in any capacity to give disturbance to\nthe church, till the thousand years are finished, and Satan is loosed\nagain out of prison, to give life and spirit to it; and then we read of\na new war begun, a fresh battle fought, _the nations deceived, the camp\nof the saints compassed about_; and this will continue till Christ shall\ncome, and put an end to it at the day of judgment, when the devil shall\nbe _cast into the lake of fire and brimstone_. In this sense some, not\nwithout ground, understand the account which is given of the _slaying_\nand _rising_ of the _witnesses_, Rev. xi. 7, 11. as signifying that the\ngospel, which before had been persecuted, and the preaching thereof\nprohibited, shall then prevail without restraint. The _witnesses\u2019\ndeath_, denotes their being silenced; their _rising_ and _standing upon\ntheir feet_, their having liberty again to preach. And therefore why may\nwe not understand the resurrection, in the chapter we are now\nconsidering, as taken in the same sense? And this agrees very well with\nthe sense of ver. 6. in which it is said, concerning them, who _have a\npart in the first resurrection_, that is, the saints, who live and reign\nwith Christ, _on such this second death hath no power_, that is,\nwhatever the enemies of the church may attempt against them, after this\nthousand years reign, shall be to no purpose; for they shall not\nprevail, their cause shall never die again. Or, if it be applied to\ntheir persons, the meaning is, that they shall not die eternally.\nEternal death is a punishment to be inflicted on their enemies, who\nshall _be cast into the lake of fire_, which is expressly called the\n_second death_, in ver. 14. But these, as it is said, in Rev. ii. 11.\nshall not be _hurt of it_, i. e. not exposed to it; but, as they have\nlived with Christ, in a spiritual sense, on earth, so they shall live\nwith him for ever in heaven.\n\nWe are, in giving this sense of the text, under a kind of necessity to\nrecede from the literal sense thereof, because we cannot altogether\nreconcile that to the analogy of faith. And it will not seem strange to\nany, who consider the mystical or allegorical style in which this book\nof the Revelation is written, that this text should be understood in the\nsame sense: However, that this sense may be farther justified, let it be\nconsidered, that it is not disagreeable to what we find in many other\nscriptures, that speak of the church\u2019s deliverance from its troubles,\nunder the metaphor of a _resurrection_; and of the destruction of its\nenemies, under the metaphor of _death_. Thus the Babylonish captivity,\nand Israel\u2019s deliverance from it, is described, in Ezek. xxxvii. 1-12.\nThe former by a metaphor taken from a _valley full of dry bones_; the\nlatter by another taken from their being _raised out of their graves,\nliving and standing on their feet an exceeding great army_. And, in Ezra\nix. 9. we read of God\u2019s extending mercy to them, who were before\nbond-men, and not forsaking them in their bondage, giving them an\nopportunity to set up the temple and worship of God; this is called,\n_giving them a reviving_; and the prophet, speaking concerning the\ncaptivity, in Lam. iii. 6. says, _He has set me in dark places, as they\nthat be dead of old_; and the prophet Isaiah speaks concerning their\nreturn from captivity, as a resurrection from the dead, _Thy dead men\nshall live, together with my dead body shall they arise; awake, and sing\nye that dwell in the dust_, Isa. xxvi. 19.\n\nMany other scriptures might be cited, out of the writings of the\nprophets, to justify this metaphorical sense of the words, _death_, and\n_resurrection_ and also some out of the New Testament, of which I need\nonly refer to one, which has a particular respect to the subject under\nour present consideration, when the apostle says, that the _receiving of\nthem_, to wit, of the church of the Jews, when converted, shall be as\n_life from the dead_, Rom. xi. 15. therefore the scripture gives\ncountenance to its being called a _resurrection_.\n\nOn the other hand, we might refer to some scriptures that speak of the\nruin of the church\u2019s enemies, under the metaphor of a state of death:\nthus, in Isa. xxvi. 14. _They are dead, they shall not live; they are\ndeceased, they shall not rise; therefore hast thou visited and destroyed\nthem, and made all their memory to perish_; and, in chap. xiv. he\ndescribes the utter destruction of the Chaldeans, the church\u2019s enemies,\nby whom they had been carried captive, in a very beautiful manner, and\ncarries on the metaphor, taken from persons departed out of this world,\nin. ver. 9, 10, 11. and says, in particular, concerning the king of\nBabylon, _Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, the noise of thy viols;\nthe worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee_; which\nsignifies the political death of that empire, and the utter inability\nwhich followed upon this, of their giving disturbance to the church of\nGod, as they had formerly done. These, and many other scriptures of the\nlike nature, may, in some measure, justify the sense we have given of\nthe scripture before mentioned, relating to the death and resurrection\nof Christ\u2019s cause, for which his martyrs suffered, and the death of the\nAnti-christian cause, which ensued thereupon.\n\nThus concerning Christ\u2019s reign on earth, and what may be probably\nsupposed to be the sense of those scriptures that are brought in defence\nthereof. We have not entered into the particular consideration of what\nis said concerning the time, or the number of years, which this glorious\ndispensation shall continue. We read, indeed, of Christ\u2019s _reigning a\nthousand years_, by which we are not to understand the eternal exercise\nof his government; for it is said not only to be _on earth_, but this\nperiod is also considered, as what shall have an end: which that\nexcellent Father, whom I before mentioned, did not duly consider, when\nhe reckoned this as a probable sense of this thousand years, and\nproduces that scripture to justify his sense of the words, in which it\nis said, that _God has remembered his covenant for ever, the word which\nhe commanded to a thousand generations_, Psal. cv. 8. by which we are to\nunderstand, that God will establish his covenant with his people, and\nmake good the promises thereof throughout all the ages of eternity.\nThis, indeed, sufficiently proves that a thousand years might be taken\nfor eternity, agreeably to the sense of scripture; but it is plain, from\nthe context, that it is not to be so taken here, in Rev. xx.\n\nAs for the other sense he gives of this _thousand years_,[205] namely,\nthat they might be understood as containing a great but indeterminate\nnumber of years, in the latter part of the last thousand which the world\nshall continue, so that, by a figurative way of speaking, a part of a\nthousand years may be called a thousand years;[206] this I will not\npretend to argue against, nor to say that those divines are in the\nwrong, who suppose that a thousand years is put for a great number of\nyears, and that it does not belong to us to say how many; I say, whether\nwe are to acquiesce in this, or in the literal sense of the words, I\nwill not determine; only we must conclude, as we have scripture ground\nfor it, that they shall end a little before Christ\u2019s coming to judgment;\nduring which short interval it is said, Satan _will be loosed a little\nseason_, and make some fresh efforts against the church, till he, and\nthose that are spirited and excited by him, to give disturbance to it,\nperish in the attempt, and are cast into the lake of fire and brimstone.\nThis is all that I shall say concerning the time appointed for this\nglorious reign, our principal design being to speak concerning the\nadvantages that the church shall enjoy under it.\n\nWe have endeavoured to avoid two extremes, namely, that of those who do\nnot put a just difference between it and the heavenly state; as also\nanother extreme, which we have not yet mentioned, which several modern\nwriters have given into, who suppose, that this thousand years\u2019 reign is\nlong since past, and that the binding of Satan therein consisted only in\nsome degrees of restraint laid on him, and that the reign itself\ncontained in it only some advantages, comparatively small, that the\nchurch enjoyed at that time, and that the thousand years\u2019 reign began in\nConstantine\u2019s time, when the empire became Christian, about the year of\nour Lord 300, and that they ended about the year 1300, when the church\nmet with some new difficulties from the eastern parts of the world,\nwhich they suppose to be intended by Gog and Magog.[207] But we cannot\nsee sufficient reason to adhere to this opinion, because the state of\nthe church, when Satan is said to be bound a thousand years, is\nrepresented as attended with a greater degree of spiritual glory,\nholiness, purity of doctrine, and many other blessings attending the\npreaching the gospel, than we are given to understand by any history\nthat it has yet enjoyed.\n\nAs to what concerns the general method, in which we have insisted on\nthis subject, I hope we have not maintained any thing that is derogatory\nto the glory of Christ\u2019s kingdom, nor what has a tendency to detract\nfrom the real advantage of the saints. Do they, on the other side of the\nquestion, speak of his reigning? so do we. They, indeed, consider him as\nreigning in his human nature, and conversing therein with his saints;\nwhich opinion we cannot give into, for reasons before mentioned: but it\nis not inconsistent with the glory of Christ to assert, as we have done,\nthat he shall reign spiritually; and the consequence hereof shall be,\nnot the external pomp and grandeur of his subjects, but their being\nadorned with purity and universal holiness, and enjoying as much peace,\nas they have reason to expect in any condition short of heaven.\nMoreover, we have not advanced any thing that has a tendency to detract\nfrom the spiritual blessings and advantages of Christ\u2019s kingdom, which\nthe saints shall enjoy in this happy period of time. If, notwithstanding\nall this, it be said, that there are some advantages which the contrary\nscheme of doctrine supposes that the saints shall enjoy on earth, beyond\nwhat we think they have ground to expect from scripture; nevertheless,\ntheir not enjoying them here will be fully compensated with a greater\ndegree of glory, which they shall have when they reign with Christ in\nheaven; which leads us to consider,\n\nThe eternity of Christ\u2019s mediatorial kingdom; concerning which it is\nsaid, _He shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his\nkingdom there shall be no end_, Luke i. 33. As he is described, by the\napostle, as a _Priest for ever_, Heb. v. 6. and as _ever living to make\nintercession for those that come unto God by him_, chap. vii. 25. so he\nshall exercise his kingly office for ever; not according to the present\nmethod of the administration thereof, but in a way adapted to that\nglorified state, in which his subjects shall be, in another world.\n\nThere is, indeed, a scripture that seems to assert the contrary, which\nthe Socinians give a very perverse sense of, as though it were\ninconsistent with his proper deity; and accordingly they suppose, that,\nas he was constituted a divine Person, or had the honour of a God, or\nking, conferred on him, when he ascended into heaven, as the reward of\nthe faithful discharge of his ministry on earth; so this was designed to\ncontinue no longer than to the end of the world, when he is to be set on\na level with other inhabitants of heaven, and _be subject to the\nFather_, when _God shall be all in all_. This they suppose to be the\nmeaning of the Apostle\u2019s words, in 1 Cor. xv. 24, 25, 28. _Then cometh\nthe end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the\nFather; when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and\npower, for he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet;\nand when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also\nhimself be subject unto him, that put all things under him, that God may\nbe all in all_. It must be acknowledged, that this is one of those\nthings, in Paul\u2019s epistles, that are hard to be understood; but I humbly\nconceive that we may give a sense of it, very remote from that but now\nmentioned, which is subversive of his Godhead, and of the eternity of\nhis kingdom. Therefore, for the understanding thereof, let it be\nconsidered,\n\n(1.) That when the apostle speaks of the _end coming when he shall\ndeliver up the kingdom to the Father_; by the kingdom we may, without\nthe least strain on the sense of the text, understand his material\nkingdom, or the subjects of his kingdom, which is very agreeable to that\nsense of the word, both in scripture and in common modes of speaking; as\nwhen we call the inhabitants of a city, the city; so we call the\nsubjects of a kingdom, the kingdom: taking the words in this sense, we\nmust suppose, that the subjects of Christ\u2019s kingdom are his trust and\ncharge, and that he is to deliver them up to the Father at last, as\npersons whom he has governed in such a way, as that the great ends of\nhis exercising his kingly office, have been fully answered, as to what\nconcerns his government in this lower world. This is no improbable sense\nof Christ\u2019s delivering up the kingdom to the Father.\n\nBut it may also be taken in another sense, to wit, for the form of\nChrist\u2019s kingdom, or the present mode of government, exercised towards\nthose who are in an imperfect state: this shall _be delivered up_, that\nis, he shall cease to govern his people in such a way as he now does;\nbut it doth not follow, from hence, that he shall not continue to govern\nthem, in a way adapted to the heavenly state.\n\nAnd when it is said, that _he shall put down all rule and all authority\nand power_, the meaning is, that all civil and ecclesiastical\ngovernment, as it is now exercised in the world, or the church, shall be\nput down, as useless, or disagreeable to the heavenly state, but it does\nnot follow, from hence, that he shall lay aside his own authority and\npower.\n\n(2.) When it is said, in ver. 25. that _he must reign till he hath put\nall enemies under his feet_, it does not imply that he shall not reign\nafterwards, but that he shall not cease to reign till then, which is the\nsense of that parallel scripture, in which it is said, _Sit thou at my\nright-hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool_, Psal. cx. 1.\nwhich does not denote that he shall, after his enemies are made his\nfootstool, sit no longer at God\u2019s right hand, as advanced there to the\nhighest honour. It is very evident, from several scriptures, as well as\nour common mode of speaking, that the word _Until_ does not always\nsignify the cessation of what is said to be done before, but only the\ncontinuance thereof till that time, as well as afterwards: thus it is\nsaid, _Our eyes wait upon the Lord our God, until that he have mercy\nupon us_, Psal. cxxiii. 2. by which we are not to understand, that, when\nGod extends mercy, the eyes of his people cease to wait upon him, but we\nwill not leave off waiting upon him, until we have received the mercies\nwe hope for; and, after that, we will continue to wait for those mercies\nthat we shall farther stand in need of; and elsewhere Job says, _Until I\ndie, I will not remove mine integrity from me; mine heart shall not\nreproach me, as long as I live_, Job xxvii. 5-7. This does not imply\nthat he would retain his integrity no longer than he lived. If the word\n_Until_ be frequently used in this sense, then there is no ground to\nsuppose, that when it is said _Christ shall reign until he has put all\nhis enemies under his feet_, that it denotes that he shall not reign to\neternity, nor any longer than till all things be subdued unto him: but,\nindeed, it rather argues, that he shall reign for ever, than that he\nshall cease to reign; for when all enemies are removed out of the way,\nand his right to govern is no longer contested by them, shall he then\ncease to exercise that sovereign dominion which he has over all things?\n\n(3.) Since the main difficulty, and the greatest stress of the argument\nbrought against the eternity of Christ\u2019s kingdom, is what the apostle\nfarther adds, in ver. 28. of this chapter, that _when all things shall\nbe subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto\nhim, that God may be all in all_. It is said, indeed, that the Son shall\nbe subject to the Father, _viz._ as man; but can any one suppose that\nthe Son is not now subject to the Father? And when it is farther added,\nGod shall be all in all, is it to be supposed that he is not now so? If\nthis be far from being the true meaning of these words, then the sense\nthey give thereof is not just, but we are to understand them thus, that\nin the end, when all the ends of Christ\u2019s administering his mediatorial\ngovernment in this lower world are answered, and the present form or\nmethod of administration shall cease, then it shall appear, that the\nwhole plan thereof had the most direct tendency to promote the Father\u2019s\nglory, or to answer those most valuable ends for which this mediatorial\nkingdom was erected; and, by this means, it will more eminently appear,\nthan ever it has done before, that this work is from God, and worthy of\nhim. If the Son\u2019s kingdom had not been subjected, or subservient to the\nFather\u2019s glory, the subjects thereof would not have been delivered up,\nor presented to the Father, as the Mediator\u2019s trust and charge committed\nto him; and, if God had not been all in all, or the administration of\nChrist\u2019s kingdom had not been the effect of divine power, in all the\nbranches thereof, it would not have had so glorious and successful an\nissue, as it will appear to have in the great day. This I take to be the\nplain sense of this scripture, which cannot reasonably be denied, if we\nconsider that it is very agreeable to our common mode of speaking, to\nsay, that a thing is, when it appears to be what it is, which may be\nthus illustrated: Suppose a king has gained a victory over his enemies,\nor quelled some civil broils, or tumults, in his kingdom, he may say,\nupon that occasion, Now I am king; that is, I appear to be so, or my\nestablishment in the kingdom seems less precarious. We have an instance\nof the like mode of speaking in scripture, when David says upon the\noccasion of bringing the affairs of his kingdom to a settled state,\nafter Absalom\u2019s rebellion, _Do I not know that I am this day king over\nIsrael?_ 2 Sam. xix. 22. that is, I appear to be so, since that, which\ntended to unhinge, or give disturbance to my government, is removed out\nof the way.\n\nMoreover, that things are said to be, when they appear to be, is\nagreeable to that mode of speaking used by the Israelites, when, upon\ntheir receiving the fullest conviction that the Lord was God, pursuant\nto Elijah\u2019s prayer, by an extraordinary display of his glory, in working\na miracle to confute their idolatry, they fell on their faces, and said,\n_The Lord he is God_; that is, he now appears to be so, by those\nextraordinary effects of his power, which we have beheld. If therefore\nthis be no uncommon mode of speaking, why may we not apply it to that\ntext which we are now endeavouring to explain? and so conclude, that the\nsense but now given of the Son\u2019s being subject to the Father, and God\u2019s\nbeing all in all, contains in it nothing absurd, or contrary to the\nscripture way of speaking, and consequently the eternity of Christ\u2019s\nkingdom is not overthrown thereby; and therefore we must conclude, that\nas his kingly government is now exercised in a way agreeable to the\npresent condition of his church, so it shall be exercised in a glorious\nmanner, suited to the heavenly state, when all his saints and subjects\nshall be brought there.\n\nThus we have considered Christ, as executing his offices of Prophet,\nPriest, and King; we now proceed to speak concerning the twofold state\nin which they have been, are, or shall be executed by him; and first\nconcerning his state of humiliation.\n\nFootnote 191:\n\n _See Quest. LXII, LXIII._\n\nFootnote 192:\n\n _See Quest. LXXVIII._\n\nFootnote 193:\n\n _See Page 257._\n\nFootnote 194:\n\n _Vid. Burnet. Tellur. Theor. Lib._ iv.\n\nFootnote 195:\n\n _Justin Martyr seems to speak of it not only as his own opinion, but\n as that which was generally held by the orthodox in his day, joins the\n belief hereof with that of the resurrection of the dead, and supposes\n it to be founded on the writings of some of the prophets. Vid. Justin\n Martyr Dialog. cum. Tryph. Jud. page 307._ \u0395\u03b3\u03c9 \u03b4\u03b5, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd\n \u03bf\u03c1\u03b8\u03bf\u03b3\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9\n \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03b8\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c7\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03b1 \u03b5\u03bb\u03b7 \u03b5\u03bd \u0399\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc \u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03b4\u03bf\u03bc\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b7\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b7, \u03bf\u03b9 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u0399\u03b5\u03b6\u03b5\u03c7\u03b9\u03b7\u03bb, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u0397\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\n \u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd. _And Iren\u00e6us_ [_Vid. advers. H\u00e6r. Lib. V. cap. 33._] _not\n only gives into this opinion, but intimates, that it was brought into\n the church before his time, by one Papias, cotemporary with Polycarp,\n and that he recieved it from those who had it imparted to them by the\n apostle John: But Eusebius, [Vid. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. III. cap.\n 33._] _though he speaks concerning this Papias, as one who was\n intimate with Polycarp, notwithstanding represents him as a very weak\n man; and therefore there is little credit to be given to his account\n of this matter, as agreeable to the apostle\u2019s sentiments or writings;\n and Iren\u00e6us himself, in the place before mentioned, cites a passage\n out of the same author, which, he pretends, he received from those\n that had it from the apostle John, concerning a certain time, in which\n there shall be vines, which shall produce ten thousand branches, and\n each of these as many smaller branches; and each of these smaller\n branches have ten thousand twigs, and every twig shall bear ten\n thousand clusters of grapes, and every cluster ten thousand grapes;\n which shews that the man was ready to swallow any fable he heard; and,\n if it was told him so, to father it upon the apostle, which discovers\n how little credit was to be given to what he says concerning this\n opinion, especially as he explains it, as transmitted to the church by\n the apostle John. And Tertullian is also mentioned, as giving some\n occasional hints, which shew that he was of this opinion. And\n Lactantius, who, in his Ciceronian style, describes the happy\n condition that the church shall be in, (without having much regard to\n those spiritual privileges that it shall enjoy, in which sense the\n predictions of the prophets, concerning it, are principally to be\n understood) takes his plan more especially from some things that are\n said concerning it, in the Sybilline oracles. Vid. Lanctant. de vita\n beat. Lib. VII. cap. 24. & Epitom. cap. 11._\n\nFootnote 196:\n\n _Vid. Aug. de Civ. Dei. Lib. XX. cap. 7._\n\nFootnote 197:\n\n _Vid. Mede Commet. min. in Apocal. cap. xix. and Dr. More, and others,\n who are of the same opinion as to this matter._\n\nFootnote 198:\n\n _See Mede\u2019s Works, Book IV. Epist. 17. Page 938-940._\n\nFootnote 199:\n\n _As for the story that Mede relates, to give countenance to this\n opinion, concerning Christ\u2019s appearing, in a glorious manner, upon the\n Jews demanding such an extraordinary event, (after a public\n disputation, held three days, between Gregentius, an Arabian Bishop,\n and Herbanus, a Jew, a multitude of spectators being present, both\n Jews and Christians) and signifying that he was the same Person that\n their fathers had crucified; and their being first struck blind, as\n Paul was, and then, like him, converted and baptized, there are\n several things, in this account, that seem fabulous and incredible;\n though it is not improbable that there was a disputation held between\n Gregentius and the Jews, about the truth of the Christian religion,\n about the year of our Lord 470; or, as others suppose, 570: yet it is\n much to be questioned, whether the account we have of it be not\n spurious, written, by one who calls himself by that name, in Greek,\n about three or four hundred years since; and especially, because so\n extraordinary a miracle, wrought in an age when miracles had, for so\n considerable a time, ceased, is not taken notice of by other writers,\n of more reputation in the age in which it is said to be wrought,\n especially since it would have been one of the most extraordinary\n proofs of the Christian religion that have been given since our\n Saviour\u2019s time. And it is very strange, that, as the result hereof,\n five millions and a half of the Jews should be converted at once, by\n this miracle, and yet this thing be passed over in silence by other\n writers; and it is very much to be questioned, whether there were such\n a multitude of Jews gathered together in one kingdom, and, indeed,\n whether that kingdom consisted of such a number of people; and, if\n there were so many Jews, we must suppose that there was an equal\n number of Christians present; but that so many should be present at\n one disputation, seems incredible to a very great degree. Vid. Gregen.\n disputat. cum Herban. fol. 192, & 200. & Cave. Hist. lit. Tom. I. page\n 363._\n\nFootnote 200:\n\n _Moriar ut videam._\n\nFootnote 201:\n\n _Vid. Mede de Resurrec. prim. Lib. III. Page 710, 749, 750._\n\nFootnote 202:\n\n _Vid. Aug. de civ. Dei, Lib._ xx. _cap. 7._\n\nFootnote 203:\n\n _See_ Ezek. xxxvii. 21. _and_ Jer. xxxvii. 7-13. _& alibi passim_.\n\nFootnote 204:\n\n _So Iren\u00e6us styles it, Adv. H\u00e6r. Lib. V. cap. 29._ Diluvium\n superveniet Ignis.\n\nFootnote 205:\n\n _Vid. Aug. de Civ. Dei. Lib. XX. cap. 7._\n\nFootnote 206:\n\n _This is very agreeable to the scripture-mode of speaking; nothing is\n more common than for the cardinal number to be put for the ordinal;\n and so the meaning is, that this reign shall continue to the\n thousandth year, or till the last 1000 years of the world shall have\n an end, what part soever of his 1000 years it began in. Thus God tells\n Abraham, in Gen._ xv. _13. that_ his seed shall be a stranger in a\n land that is not theirs, _to wit, Egypt, and shall_ serve them, and\n they shall afflict them 400 years; _whereas it is certain that his\n seed were not above 215 years in Egypt, and they were not slaves, or\n afflicted there 100 years; therefore the meaning is,_ q. d. _that they\n shall afflict them till 400 years are expired, from this time._\n\nFootnote 207:\n\n _See Napier on the Revelation, prop. 33, 34. page 61, 62._\n\n\n\n\n Quest. XLVI., XLVII., XLVIII.\n\n\n QUEST. XLVI. _What was the estate of Christ\u2019s humiliation?_\n\n ANSW. The estate of Christ\u2019s humiliation was that low condition,\n wherein he, for our sakes, emptying himself of his glory, took upon\n him the form of a servant, in his conception and birth, life, death,\n and, after his death, until his resurrection.\n\n QUEST. XLVII. _How did Christ humble himself in his conception and\n birth?_\n\n ANSW. Christ humbleth himself in his conception, in that, being from\n all eternity, the Son of God, in the bosom of the Father, he was\n pleased, in the fulness of time, to become the Son of man, made of a\n woman of low estate, and to be born of her; with divers\n circumstances of more than ordinary abasement.\n\n QUEST. XLVIII. _How did Christ humble himself in his life?_\n\n ANSW. Christ humbled himself in his life by subjecting himself to\n the law, which he perfectly fulfilled, and by conflicting with the\n indignities of the world, temptations of Satan, and infirmities in\n his flesh; whether common to the nature of man, or particularly\n accompanying that his low condition.\n\nIn considering Christ\u2019s low and humble state, while he was in this\nworld, we may observe, that this is styled his _emptying himself of his\nglory_, when _he took on him the form of a servant_: thus the apostle\nexpresses it, in Phil. ii. 7. for the words,[208] which we render, _he\nmade himself of no reputation_, are to be so understood. Now, since his\nincarnation is so expressed, we must, before we proceed any farther on\nthis subject, enquire, how this was inconsistent with his Godhead? and,\nwhether he might be said, in taking our nature, to empty or humble\nhimself? and also, whether his incarnation may, properly speaking, be\ncalled a part of his humiliation?\n\nThere is a sense in which he may be said to humble himself in his divine\nnature; as, when we read of _God\u2019s humbling himself, to behold the\nthings that are in heaven and in the earth_, Psal. cxiii. 6. This is so\nfar from being a dishonour to him, that it is expressive of his glory,\nas it argues, that there is an infinite distance between him and the\ncreature. In this sense, the second Person of the Godhead might be said\nto humble himself, in assuming the human nature, and thereby, as it\nwere, casting a veil over his glory. This is such a sense of Christ\u2019s\nhumiliation, as denotes infinite condescension, but no diminution, or\nloss of divine glory; neither can this be styled his emptying himself of\nglory, or humbling himself, in that sense in which the apostle expresses\nit, as above mentioned. It cannot be denied, but that Christ\u2019s\nincarnation was the highest instance of condescension; and, if nothing\nmore be intended than this, when persons speak of Christ\u2019s humbling\nhimself in his incarnation, or taking our nature into union with his\ndivine, we are far from denying it.\n\nBut we are not now speaking of Christ\u2019s humbling himself in a relative\nsense, as God, but his being in a state of humiliation, as God-man\nMediator; in which sense, the act of incarnation, or taking the human\nnature into union with his divine Person, cannot, properly speaking, be\nstyled a branch of his mediatorial humiliation; for that which tends to\nconstitute the Person of the Mediator, cannot be said to belong\nantecedently to him as Mediator. For the understanding of which, we may\nobserve,\n\n1. That the Person of Christ is to be considered in two different\nrespects, _viz._ as God, or as Mediator; in the former sense, he was,\nfrom eternity, a divine Person, and would have been so, if he had not\nbeen Mediator: but when we speak of his Person, as Mediator, we always\nconsider him as God-man.[209]\n\n2. Every mediatorial act,[210] according to the most proper and literal\nsense thereof, supposes the constitution of his Person, as God-man\nMediator, and consequently it supposes him to be incarnate. This is\nevident, because what he did here on earth was performed by him, in\nobedience to, and as having received a commission from, the Father;\nwhich could not be performed any otherwise than in his human nature.\n\n3. Christ could not be said to assume the human nature into union with\nhis divine Person, as God-man, for that implies a contradiction in\nterms; nor could it be said, that, before this, he performed any act of\nobedience to the law, for that supposes the human nature to be assumed,\nand therefore is consequent to his incarnation.\n\n4. For our farther understanding this matter, we may distinguish between\nthe act of incarnation, or taking the human nature into union with his\ndivine Person; and the state in which he was, after this. The former was\nan instance of divine condescension; the latter, in the most proper\nsense, was a branch of his mediatorial humiliation. And this leads us to\nconsider the various instances in which Christ is said to have humbled\nhimself, in some following answers, namely, in his birth, life, death,\nand after his death.\n\nI. Christ humbled himself in his birth; and that,\n\n1. In that he submitted to be in a state of infancy, in common with all,\nwho come into the world. This is the most unactive state of life, in\nwhich we are under a natural incapacity of enjoying, or conversing with\nGod, or being of any other use, than objectively, to men, inasmuch as\nthe new-born infant is destitute, at least, of the regular exercise of\nthought; and is also exposed to various evils, that attend its infantile\nstate; sensible of a great deal of pain and uneasiness, which renders it\nthe object of compassion; and knows not what is the secret cause\nthereof, nor how to seek redress. This stage of life our Saviour passed\nthrough, and thereby discovered a great degree of humiliation.\n\nWe have no reason to think, with the Papists[211], that, during his\ninfancy, he had the perfect exercise of his reasoning powers, as though\nhe had been in a state of manhood, as supposing that the contrary would\nhave been a dishonour to him. For, if it were in no wise unbecoming the\ndivine nature to continue its union with his body, when separate from\nhis soul, and therefore in a state of the greatest inactivity, it could\nbe no dishonour for it to be united to his human nature, though we\nsuppose it to have been, during his infancy, in that state, in which\nother infants are, as having the powers and faculties of the soul not\ndeduced into act, as they afterwards are; therefore we can reckon this\nno other than a groundless and unnecessary conjecture, and cannot but\nadmire this instance of his humiliation, while he was an infant. And,\nindeed, since he came to redeem infants, as well as others, it was\nbecoming the wisdom and goodness of God, that he should be like them, in\nmost other respects, except in their being born guilty of Adam\u2019s sin. If\nhis passing through the other ages of life was designed for our\nadvantage, as he was therein like unto us, and as the apostle says, able\nto sympathize with us, in the various miseries that attend them; so this\naffords the like argument for that peculiar compassion, which he has for\ninfants, under those evils that they are liable to.\n\nWhat we have here asserted, against those who think it a dishonour to\nhim, to suppose, that he was liable to any imperfection, as to\nknowledge, during his infancy, is not to be reckoned a groundless\nconjecture, without sufficient reason to support it; since it is\nexpressly said, in scripture, in Luke ii. 52. that he _increased in\nwisdom_ as well as _stature_; therefore we suppose, that Christ\u2019s\nhumiliation began in those natural infirmities, which he was liable to,\nthat are inseparable from a state of infancy.\n\n2. Another branch of Christ\u2019s humiliation, respecting his birth, was,\nthat he should be born of a woman of very low degree in the world,\nrather than of one, whose circumstances and character therein were\nsuperior to those of all others, and called for an equal degree of\nrespect from them. The blessed virgin was, indeed in a spiritual sense,\nhonoured and respected above all women, as the salutation given her, by\nthe angel, imports, _Hail thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is\nwith thee; Blessed art thou among women_, Luke i. 28. notwithstanding,\nit is plain she was far from being honourable in the opinion of the\nworld. It is true, she was, of the seed of David, which was a princely\nline: But the sceptre was now departed from it; therefore, when our\nSaviour is said to have _the throne of his father David_, chap. i. 32.\ngiven him by God, it is certain he had it not from his parents, in a\npolitical sense. It is called, indeed, the throne of David, as referring\nto that promise made to David, 2 Sam. vii. 12-16. that one should\ndescend from him whom God would _set on his throne, whose kingdom he\nwould establish for ever_. What relates to the establishment of David\u2019s\nkingdom, and the eternity of it, certainly looks farther than the reign\nof Solomon, or the succession of kings, who were of that line; so that\nDavid\u2019s kingdom continuing for ever, denotes the perpetuity thereof, in\nChrist\u2019s being set, in a spiritual sense, on his throne, which seems to\nbe the meaning of the angel\u2019s words, _He shall sit on the throne of his\nfather David_. He had not, indeed, a right to David\u2019s crown by natural\ndescent from him, for that seems contrary to what was foretold of him;\nfor though it is said, that _a rod shall come of the stem of Jesse, and\na branch shall grow out of his roots_; Isa. xi. 1. which plainly refers\nto our Saviour, as being of the seed of David; yet it is as plainly\nintimated, that he was not to inherit the crown of David, in a political\nsense, by right of natural descent from him, inasmuch as it is said, _He\nshall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry\nground_, chap. liii. 2.\n\nTo this we may add; that his mother\u2019s condition in the world appears to\nhave been very low, in that she was treated with an uncommon degree of\nneglect, as it is particularly remarked, Luke ii. 7. designing to set\nforth our Saviour\u2019s humiliation in his birth, that _she brought forth\nher first-born Son, and wrapt him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in\na manger, because there was no room for them in the inn_. No room,\nbecause his mother was poor, and therefore was treated in such a manner;\nbetter accommodations were reserved for others, who, at that time, in\nwhich there was great resort to Bethlehem, were better able to satisfy\nthe mercenary demands of those, at whose house they lodged.\n\nAs for Joseph his reputed father, he was not one of the great men of\nthis world, but lived by his industry, his occupation being that of _a\ncarpenter_, Mat. xiii. 55. This was sometimes objected against our\nSaviour by his enemies, who did not consider, that the mean condition of\nhis parents was a part of that state of humiliation, which he was to\npass through, in discharging the work for which he came into the world,\nand plainly discovered, that he cast the utmost contempt on all the\nexternal pomp and grandeur thereof, and thought no honours worthy of his\nreceiving, but such as were of a spiritual nature.\n\n3. There is another circumstance of humiliation, taken from the places\nof our Saviour\u2019s birth and residence. He was born in Bethlehem, a city,\nwhich though once esteemed honourable when David dwelt there: yet, at\nthis time, it was reckoned, by the Jews, not as one of the principal\ncities of Judah. The prophet Micah styles it, _Little among the\nthousands of Judah_, Micah v. 2. But as for the place of his abode,\nNazareth, that was despised, even to a proverb; so that the Jews\nreckoned, that nothing good or great could come from thence. Thus\nNathaniel speaks their common sense, when he says, _Can there any good\nthing come out of Nazareth?_ John i. 46. And this was afterwards\nimproved against him, as an argument that he was no prophet; when the\nJews say, not concerning this place alone, but the whole country, in\nwhich it was, to wit, Galilee, _Out of it ariseth no prophet_, chap.\nvii. 51. And this, is expressly intimated, as a design of providence,\nthat it should be a part of his humiliation, as it is said, _He dwelt in\na city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken by\nthe prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene_, Matt. ii. 23. by which we\nare not to understand, that any of the prophets foretold this in express\nwords, as having particular reference to the place where he lived: But\nthe meaning is, that as the prophets, with one consent, spake of him, as\nbeing in a most low and humble state, so this was a particular instance\nhereof; and, in that respect, what was spoken by them, concerning his\nstate of humiliation, in various instances, as fulfilled in this[212].\n\nII. Christ\u2019s state of humiliation appeared throughout his whole life,\nand that in several instances.\n\n1. In his subjecting himself to the law; and accordingly he was under an\nobligation to yield obedience to God in every thing that was required of\nhim, during the whole course of his life. This, indeed, was the\nnecessary result of his incarnation; so that he no sooner became man,\nbut he was under a law, which no creature is, or can be, exempted from.\nNevertheless, it was so far founded on his own consent, as he consented\nto be incarnate, which was certainly an instance of infinite\ncondescension; and his being, in pursuance thereof, actually made under\nthe law, was a branch of his mediatorial humiliation.\n\n_1st_, He was made under the law, that is, he was obliged to obey the\nprecepts thereof; and that not only of the moral law, which, as to some\nof its precepts, the best of creatures are under a natural obligation to\nyield obedience to; but, besides this, there were several positive laws,\nwhich he submitted to yield obedience to, in common with these he came\nto redeem, which obligation he perfectly fulfilled, as it is observed in\nwhat he says to John the Baptist, _Thus it becometh us to fulfil all\nrighteousness_, Mat. iii. 15. _q. d._ it becometh me, in common with all\nmankind, to yield perfect obedience to the law; and elsewhere he speaks\nof himself, as coming into the world _to fulfil the law_, chap. v. 17.\nAnd we may observe, that it was not one single act, but a course of\nobedience, that he performed, during his whole life, as it is said, in\nthis answer, he perfectly fulfilled the law, which is agreeable to that\nsinless perfection, which is ascribed to him in scripture.\n\n_2dly_, He was made under the law, that is, he was subject to the curse\nthereof, that was due to us for sin; which is called, by divines, the\nmaledictory part of it; as it is said, _Christ hath redeemed us from the\ncurse of the law, being made a curse for us_, Gal. iii. 13. As he obeyed\nwhat the law enjoined, so he suffered what it threatened, as a\npunishment due to us for sin.\n\n2. Our Saviour conflicted with the indignities of the world. When he was\nan infant, _Herod sought his life_; and, had not his parents been warned\nby God, to flee into another country, he had been slain, as well as the\nchildren that were barbarously murdered in Bethlehem, Mat. ii. 13. But\nhe was most persecuted, and met with the greatest indignities, after he\nappeared publickly in the world; for before that time, till he was about\nthirty years of age, it might be reckoned a part of his humiliation,\nthat he was not much known therein, and was, at least, a considerable\npart of that time dependent on, and subject to his parents. It is true,\nhe did not then meet with much opposition from the Jews, while they were\nin expectation that he would appear as an earthly monarch, and deliver\nthem from the Roman yoke: But when their expectation hereof was\nfrustrated, and they saw nothing in him but what was agreeable to his\nstate of humiliation, they were offended; and, from that time, the\ngreatest injuries and indignities were offered to him, as will appear,\nif we consider,\n\n(1.) That they did not own his glory as the Son of God, nor see and\nadore his deity, that was united to the human nature, when, being made\nflesh, he dwelt among us; and therefore it is observed, that though _the\nworld was made by him, the world knew him not_, John i. 10. or, as the\napostle says, concerning him, (for so the words may be rendered) _Whom\nnone of the princes of this world knew_, 1 Cor. ii. 8. they knew, or\nowned him not to be the Lord of glory; and, as they knew him not, so\nthey desired not to know him; therefore the prophet says, _We hid, as it\nwere our faces from him_, Isa. liii. 3.\n\n(2.) They questioned his mission, denied him to be the Christ, though\nthis truth had been confirmed by so many incontestable miracles: This is\nthat unbelief which the Jews are so often charged with. Thus when they\ncome to him, and tell him, _How long dost thou make us to doubt? tell us\nplainly, whether thou be the Christ or no?_ To which he replies, _I told\nyou, and ye believed not_, and appeals to _the works which he did in his\nFather\u2019s name_, John x. 24-26. which one would think were a sufficient\nevidence hereof: But yet they were obstinate and hardened in unbelief;\nand not only so, but,\n\n(3.) They reproached him, as though he wrought miracles by the power of\nthe devil, which was the most malicious and groundless slander that\ncould be invented, as though Satan\u2019s kingdom had been divided against\nitself, or he would empower a person to work miracles, as a means to\npromote the interest of God, and thereby to weaken his own, as our\nSaviour justly replies to that charge, Mat. xii. 24-26. And, indeed,\nthey knew, in their own consciences, that this was a false accusation,\nand hereby sinned against the greatest light, and fullest conviction;\nwhich occasioned him to denounce that terrible and awful threatning\nagainst them, that this _sin should never be forgiven them, neither in\nthis world, nor in the world to come_.\n\n(4.) They reproached him as to his moral character, for no other reason,\nbut because he conversed, in a free and friendly manner, with his\npeople, and went about doing them good. If he, at any time, accepted of\nthe least common instances of kindness, or conversed with sinful men,\nwith a design to promote their spiritual advantage, they revile him for\nit: Thus he says, _The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they\nsay, Behold a man gluttonous, and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans,\nand sinners_, chap. xi. 19.\n\n(5.) It was a matter of common discourse amongst them, that he was a\ndeceiver of the people, though the evidence of truth shone like a\nsun-beam in every thing that he said and did; Thus it is said _There\nwere much murmuring among the people concerning him; for some said, He\nis a good man, others said, Nay; but he deceiveth the people_, John vii.\n12.\n\n(6.) Sometimes they were uneasy at his presence, and desirous to be rid\nof him, and his ministry. Thus the Gergesenes, because they had suffered\na little damage in the loss of their swine, unanimously _besought him to\ndepart out of their coasts_, Matt. viii. 34. Thus they knew not their\nown privilege, but were weary of him, who was a public and universal\nblessing to the world.\n\n(7.) Many refused to give him entertainment in their houses, or to treat\nhim with that civility, which a common traveller expects; which\noccasioned him to complain, that _the foxes have holes, and the birds of\nthe air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head_,\nchap. viii. 20.\n\n(8.) At some times, even before his last sufferings and crucifixion,\nthey attempted to take away his life, and thereby expressed the greatest\ndegree of ingratitude and hatred of him. Their attempts, indeed were to\nno purpose, because his hour was not yet come: Thus, when he had\nasserted his divine glory, they not only charged him with blasphemy, but\n_took up stones to stone him_, John viii. 59. and even his\nfellow-citizens, among whom he had been brought up, and to whom he had\nusually _read_ and expounded the scripture, _on the sabbath-days_; these\nnot only _thrust him out of the city_, but _led him to the brow of an\nhill_, designing to put him to death, by casting him down from it, but\n_he passed through the midst of them_, and for the present, escaped\ntheir bloody design: This was a more aggravated crime, as it was\ncommitted by those who were under peculiar obligations to him, Luke iv.\n16. compared with 29, 30. Thus _he endured_, not only, as the apostle\nsays, _the contradiction of sinners against himself_, Heb. xii. 3. but\nthe most ungrateful and injurious treatment from those, to whom he had\nbeen so great a friend, which was a great addition to his sufferings, so\nthat during his whole life, he might be said to have been, as the\nprophet styles him, _A man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief_, Isa.\nliii. 3.\n\n3. Our Saviour conflicted with the temptations of Satan: Thus it is\nsaid, _He was in all points, tempted, like as we are, yet without sin_,\nHeb. iv. 15. or, _He suffered being tempted_, chap. ii. 18. though we\nare not to understand by his being, in all points, tempted, like as we\nare, that he had any temptations arising in his own soul, as we have,\nfrom the corruption of our nature; for this would have been inconsistent\nwith his perfect holiness; and therefore what the apostle says\nconcerning us, that _every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his\nown lust, and enticed_, James i. 14. is, by no means applicable to him;\nbut that he was tempted by Satan, is very evident from scripture. Some\nthink, that Satan, was let loose upon him, and suffered to express his\nutmost malice against him, and to practise all those usual methods\nwhereby he endeavours to ensnare mankind, in those remarkable seasons of\nhis life, namely, in his first entrance on his public ministry, and\nimmediately before his last sufferings; the former of these none deny;\nthe latter some think we have ground to conclude from his own words, in\nwhich he says, _The Prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in\nme_, John xiv. 30. where it seems, that by the _prince of this world_,\nhe means the devil, inasmuch as he is so called elsewhere, chap. xii.\n31. as well as _the god of this world_, 2 Cor. iv. 4. _and the prince of\nthe power of the air_, Eph. ii. 2. If this be the sense of our Saviour\u2019s\nwords, _The prince of this world cometh_, it is as if he should say, I\nexpect that, together with my other sufferings, I shall be exposed to\nthe last and most violent efforts that Satan will make. As he assaulted\nme when I first entered on my public ministry, so he will do it now I am\nabout to close my work on earth: Then he endeavoured to ensnare me with\nhis wiles; now he will endeavour to make me uneasy with his fiery darts.\nThis was, as it were, _the hour_ of the powers of darkness: and we may\nsuppose, that if they were suffered, they would attempt to discourage\nour Saviour, by representing to him the formidableness of the death of\nthe cross, the insupportableness of the wrath of God due to sin, and how\nmuch it was his interest to take some method to save himself from those\nevils that were impending: Thus we may suppose, that our Saviour\napprehends the tempter as coming: but we may observe he says, he _hath\nnothing in me_, that is, no corrupt nature, that shall make me receptive\nof any impressions, arising from his temptations. His fiery darts,\nthough pointed and directed against me, shall be as darts shot against a\nrock, into which they cannot enter, but are immediately repelled.\n\nBut some think, that by _the prince of this world_, our Saviour does not\nmean the devil, any otherwise than as he instigated his persecutors to\naccuse, condemn, and crucify him; and that this is most agreeable to the\nwords immediately foregoing, _Hereafter I will not talk much with you_,\nq. d. I have not much time to converse with you; for he who will betray\nme, and those that are sent to apprehend me, are ready to come; I must\nin a very little time, be accused and tried, and, as the consequence\nhereof, condemned, though they will find nothing in me worthy of death;\nI say, since it is questioned, whether this be not as probable a sense\nof this text, as that above mentioned, and therefore that this cannot be\nreckoned an instance of Christ\u2019s temptation, which was more immediately\nfrom Satan, we shall pass it over, and proceed to consider that\nconflict, which, without doubt, he underwent with the devil, in his\nfirst entrance on his public ministry.\n\nThis we read of in Matt. iv. 1-11. and Luke iv. 1-13. And, because there\nis a small difference between these two evangelists, in the account they\ngive of this matter, from whence the enemies of divine revelation take\noccasion to reproach it, as though it were inconsistent with itself, we\nshall briefly consider and vindicate it from calumny. We may observe,\nthat Matthew says, _When he had fasted forty days, the tempter came to\nhim_; whereas Luke says, _He was forty days tempted of the devil_; and\nMark speaks to the same purpose, Mark i. 13. Matthew seems to speak of\nhis temptations as at the _end of the forty days_; the other two\nevangelists intimate, that he was tempted more or less, all the forty\ndays. There is no contradiction in these two accounts; Luke only adds a\ncircumstance which Matthew omits, to wit, that Satan assaulted him with\nvarious temptations, all the time he was in the wilderness; whereas\nthese, which are recorded by both the evangelists, were towards the end\nof the forty days.\n\nAgain, Matthew, speaking concerning the first of these temptations,\nintroduces the devil, as saying to our Saviour, _If thou be the Son of\nGod command that these stones be made bread_; whereas Luke speaks but of\none stone; _Command_ that _this stone be made bread_. This seeming\ncontradiction may easily be reconciled, by considering, that by these\n_stones_ in Matthew, may be meant one of these stones, which is a very\ncommon hebraism; as when it is said, that Jonah _was gone down to the\nsides of the ship_, Jonah i. 5. that is, one of the sides; and elsewhere\nit is said, that, when Christ was upon the cross, the _thieves_, which\nwere crucified with him, reviled him, Matt. xxvii. 44. which hebraism\nLuke explains, when he says, _One of the malefactors_ railed on him,\nLuke xxiii. 59. So in this temptation, Satan pointing at some large\nstone, tempted him to turn it into bread; and Matthew intends no more,\nwhen he says, _Command that these stones_, that is, one of them, _be\nmade bread_.\n\nAgain, we observe another difference in the account given by Matthew,\nfrom that given by Luke, respecting the order of the temptations.\nMatthew speaks of Satan\u2019s tempting him _to fall down and worship him_,\nas the third and last temptation, which, as it is more than probable, it\nwas; but Luke, inverting the order, lays down this temptation in the\nsecond place. However, there is no contradiction between these two; for\nthe credit of an historian is not weakened, provided he relate matters\nof fact, though he does not, in every circumstance, observe the order in\nwhich things were done, especially when nothing material depends upon\nit; so that, upon the whole, the difference between the accounts of\nthese two evangelists, is so inconsiderable, that it is needless to say\nany thing farther on that head. We shall therefore proceed to consider\nChrist\u2019s temptation, as we find it here recorded. And,\n\n1. We may observe the time in which he was exposed thereunto, to wit,\nimmediately after his baptism, when he first entered on his public\nministry, having but just before received a glorious testimony, by a\nvoice from heaven saying, _This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well\npleased_, Matt. iii. 17. upon which it is said, _Then was he led into\nthe wilderness, to be tempted of the devil_, or, as Mark farther\nexplains it, _Immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness_,\nMark i. 12. From whence we may take occasion to infer,\n\n(1.) That God\u2019s children have reason to expect, in conformity to Christ\ntheir Head, that, after extraordinary manifestations of divine love,\nthey may sometimes meet with great temptations; so that, as grace is\nexcited by the one, it may be exercised, tried, and the truth thereof\nmore plainly evinced by the other; and, indeed, in us, there is a\nparticular reason for it, which was not applicable to our Saviour,\nnamely, that after great honours conferred upon us, when God is pleased\nto manifest himself to us, we may be kept, as the apostle says,\nconcerning himself on the like occasion, from being _exalted above\nmeasure_, 2 Cor. xii. 7.\n\n(2.) We may, from hence, observe, how Satan shews his malice and envy at\nGod\u2019s people, so that when they are raised nearest to heaven, he will\nuse his utmost endeavours to bring them down to hell; and hereby he\nshews his opposition to God, by attempting to rob him of that glory,\nwhich he designs to bring to himself, by these extraordinary\nmanifestations, as well as his people, of the blessed fruits and effects\nthereof, whereby he thinks to counteract what God is doing for them.\n\n(3.) As our Saviour was tempted just before his entrance on his public\nministry, we learn, from hence; that when God designs that his people\nshall engage in any great, useful, and difficult work, they are like to\nmeet with great temptations, which God suffers that he may put them upon\nbeing on their watch, and fortify them against many other temptations,\nwhich they may expect to meet with, in the discharge thereof. Many\ninstances of this we have in scripture; particularly in Moses, when\ncalled to go into the land of Egypt, Exod. iv. 1, 10, 13. and the\nprophet Jeremiah, when sent to a _people, whose faces he was afraid of_,\nJer. i. 6, 8. Satan suggested several unwarrantable excuses, to\ndiscourage them from undertaking the work to which they were called.\n\n2. The next thing to be observed is, the place in which Christ was\nexposed to these conflicts with the tempter, namely, the _wilderness_.\nIt is not our business to enquire what wilderness it was, whether one of\nthe smaller wildernesses in the land of Judea, or the great wilderness\non the other side Jordan, since the scripture is silent as to this\nmatter; though the latter seems more probable, since there are higher\nmountains in it than in the other; and we read, that that wilderness, in\nwhich Christ was tempted, had in it an exceeding high mountain, from\nwhence the devil shewed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory\nof them. There was in that wilderness mount Nebo, from the top whereof\nMoses took a view of the whole land of Canaan: But, passing by the\nconsideration of the particular wilderness, in which Christ was tempted,\nwe shall observe, that the place which providence designed for this\nconflict was a wilderness,\n\n(1.) That he might fast during the time of his being there, that being a\nplace destitute of necessary food: And this was ordered by providence,\nnot only as a particular instance of his humiliation, but that Satan\nmight, from hence, take occasion to suit one of his temptations to his\ncondition, as being an hungred.\n\n(2.) Another reason was, that being separate from all his friends and\nacquaintance, he might be neither helped nor hindered by them, that so\nSatan might have the greatest advantage he could desire against him, as\nsolitude is a state most adapted to temptations; and consequently that\nhis affliction herein, and the victory he should obtain, should be more\nremarkable: As none was with him to offer him any assistance, so none\ncould take occasion to claim a part in his triumph over the adversary.\n\nAs to what is said, in the text, concerning his being _led by the\nSpirit, into the wilderness to be tempted_, we humbly conceive that it\nis the Holy Spirit who is there intended, as the words seem to import;\nfor it would not be so proper to say, he was led by the impure spirit,\nthe devil, to be tempted of the devil; and Luke says, that, _being full\nof the Holy Ghost, he was led by the Spirit_, that is, the Holy Ghost,\nwith whom he was filled, _into the wilderness_, Luke iv. 1. Besides\nthis, it doth not seem agreeable to the holiness of Christ, to suppose,\nthat he went into the wilderness at the motion and instigation of the\ndevil; for that would have been an unjustifiable action. We may lawfully\ngo, in the way of temptation, when providence leads us there; but it is\nnot lawful for us to go within the verge of Satan\u2019s temptations, by his\nown instigation. And this seems farther probable, inasmuch as it is\nsaid, that, _after the devil was departed from him, he returned in_, or\n_by the power of the Spirit, into Galilee_, ver. 14. If he returned by\nthe power of the Holy Spirit out of the wilderness, have we not equal\nground to conclude that he was led by him into it at first.\n\nBut if it be said, that he did not go into the wilderness by the\ninstigation of the devil, but was carried thither with violence by him:\nthough this would clear our Saviour from the guilt of going by the\ndevil\u2019s persuasion in the way of temptation; yet we can hardly allow\nthat God would suffer the devil to have so much power over Christ\u2019s\nbody, as to carry him where he pleased, by a violent motion.\n\nIf it be replied to this, that the devil might as well be said to carry\nhim into the wilderness, as to take him up into the holy city, and set\nhim upon a pinnacle of the temple, by a violent motion; in which sense\nsome understand that passage in the second temptation, wherein it is\nsaid, that the devil did so, in ver. 5. what answer may be given to\nthis, will appear from what may farther be said, when we speak of this\ntemptation in particular.\n\n3. We shall now consider the three temptations, mentioned in this\nscripture, which he was exposed to. And that,\n\n(1.) More generally; and accordingly we may observe,\n\n_1st_, That the two first of them were very subtil: so that some would\nhardly have discerned wherein the sin lay, had he complied with them;\nbut that will be considered under a following head. We need only remark,\nat present, that herein the devil acted like a deceiver, and appeared to\nbe, as he is elsewhere called, _The old serpent_. In the third\ntemptation, he openly discovered his own vileness, and blasphemously\nusurped that glory which is due to God alone, when he tempted our\nSaviour to fall down and worship him.\n\n_2dly_, In these temptations, he insinuates, that some advantage would\naccrue to our Saviour from his compliance therewith. This he generally\ndoes when he tempts us, wherein he makes an overture of some advantage\nwhich we shall gain by our compliance. The advantage he proposed, by the\nfirst temptation, was, that hereby he might prevent his starving with\nhunger. By the second, he proposed, that he might gain popular applause,\nby casting himself down from the temple, among the people that were\nwalking near it, that they might admire him for his wonderful action;\nand, in both these temptations, he urges him to give a proof of his\nbeing the Son of God, by which means his doctrine might be more readily\nreceived. In the third temptation, indeed, the advantage is altogether\ncarnal, and such as, had Satan considered the holiness of the Person he\nwas speaking to, and his contempt of the kingdoms of the world, and the\nglory thereof, he might easily have supposed that our Saviour would have\ndespised the overture, as well as abhorred the action.\n\n_3dly_, We may observe, that in the second temptation, the devil refers\nto a promise contained in scripture, and so puts him upon that which\ncarries in it the appearance of duty, namely, his depending upon the\ndivine protection, in expectation that God would give the angels charge\nover him: but he quotes the scripture fallaciously, by leaving out a\nvery material thing contained in it, _He shall give his angels charge\nover thee, to keep thee in all thy ways_, Psal. xci. 11. whereby it is\nimplied, that none have a right to depend on the divine protection, but\nthey who are in the way of duty, which Christ would not have been, had\nhe complied with this temptation.\n\n_4thly_, Another thing we observe is, that our Saviour not only refused\nto comply with the temptation, in all these three instances, but he\nassigned a reason of his refusal, whereby it appears that he did this\nwith judgment; and hereby we are instructed not only to refuse to comply\nwith Satan\u2019s temptations, but we should be able to give a reason of our\nrefusal. And, as we farther observe, that our Saviour answers all these\ntemptations, by referring to scripture, which he adhered to, as a rule\nto direct his conduct, and therein expressed the greatest deference to\nit: so he teaches us to do the same, as the Psalmist says, _By the word\nof thy lips I have kept me from the paths of the destroyer_, Psal. xvii.\n4. it is by the _sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God_, that we\n_quench all the fiery darts of the wicked_, Eph. vi. 16, 17.\n\n(2.) We shall now proceed to consider the three temptations in\nparticular, together with our Saviour\u2019s answer to each of them, and that\nin the order in which they are related by the evangelist Matthew, in\nchap. iv.\n\n_First_, The first temptation was, that he would prove his being the Son\nof God, by commanding stones to be made bread. The subtilty of this\ntemptation consists,\n\n1. In that it seemed not only lawful, but necessary, for Christ, on some\noccasions, to give a proof that he was the Son of God; and his working\nmiracles was the way by which this was to be done. And it would not\nseem, to some, unlawful for him to work a miracle in turning stones into\nbread, since we read, among other miracles, of his multiplying the\nloaves and fishes to feed the multitude; therefore why may he not\nproduce bread, in a miraculous manner, as well now, as at any other\ntime?\n\n2. Satan puts him upon working this miracle, from a principle of\nself-preservation which is a duty founded in the law of nature, to\nsupply himself with necessary food, being an hungred; and, if it was\nlawful for him to produce bread to feed others, was it not lawful to do\nthe same for his own subsistence, especially since he was in a place in\nwhich food was not to be obtained by any other means?\n\n3. He pretends to have a great concern for our Saviour\u2019s welfare, that\nso he might not perish with hunger: thus he thought to gain an advantage\nover him, by a pretence of friendship, as he often does in those\ntemptations he offers to us, to promote our own welfare by unlawful\nmeans.\n\nLet us now consider wherein the snare lay, which our Saviour was\nthoroughly apprized of, and in what respects he would have sinned, had\nhe complied with this temptation. This will appear, if we consider,\n\n(1.) That it was not lawful for him to work a miracle to gratify the\ndevil; and that for this reason in particular, because it would have\nbeen contrary to the general end and design of his working miracles,\nwhich was only for the advantage of his people, who are the proper\nsubjects of conviction thereby; for him to work them with any other\ndesign, would have been to prostitute a sacred ordinance, or to apply it\nto whom it did not belong. When _the woman of Canaan_ came to him,\nbeseeching him to work a miracle, in casting the devil out of her\ndaughter; she being not a member of the Jewish church, or one _of the\nlost sheep of the house of Israel_, our Saviour tells her, _It is not\nmeet to take the children\u2019s bread, and cast it unto dogs_; and that he\nwas not _sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel_, Matt. xv.\n24, 26. that is, he was only to work miracles for the conviction of\nthose who were the proper subjects thereof; and, doubtless, he would not\nhave wrought this miracle at her request, had she not been a proper\nsubject of conviction, which she was, as an elect person, though not by\nnature an Israelite. Now, to apply this to our present purpose, the\ndevil was not a subject of conviction, and therefore Christ was not\nobliged to prove himself the Son of God to him; for which reason he\nwould have sinned, had he complied with this temptation.\n\n(2.) Had it been otherwise, it doth not seem necessary, at this time,\nfor him to prove himself to be the Son of God, since that had, but a\nlittle before, been sufficiently attested, by a voice from heaven; and\ntherefore to work a miracle to confirm it at present, would argue a\ndisbelief of that testimony.\n\n(3.) For Christ to work a miracle for his own subsistence, seems\ndisagreeable to the main design of his working miracles, which, as was\nbefore hinted, was his people\u2019s conviction that he was the Messiah; and\ntherefore it does not sufficiently appear that he ever provided for the\nnecessities of himself, or his family in such a way.[213] But suppose he\nhad at any time, subsisted himself by working a miracle, it would have\nargued a distrust of the providence of God to have supplied his hunger,\nat present, that way; as though God, who had hitherto preserved him\nwithout food, could not have continued so to do, as long as he was in\nthe wilderness. And it would also have been contrary to one design of\nhis being led there by the Spirit; which was, that he might humble\nhimself by fasting, as well as conflict with Satan\u2019s temptations. Thus\nconcerning the first temptation that was offered by the devil.\n\nLet us now consider Christ\u2019s answer to it. This is contained in ver. 4.\n_It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word\nthat proceedeth out of the mouth of God._ The scripture here referred\nto, is in Deut. viii. 3. where we have the very same words; which, as\nthey are applied by our Saviour to repel this temptation, imply in them\ntwo things:\n\n_1st_, That man hath a better life to secure, than that which is\nmaintained by bread, to wit, the life of the soul: thus it is said, _A\nman\u2019s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he\npossesseth_, Luke xii. 15. If we take it in this sense, it is as though\nhe he should say, If I comply with this temptation, I should sin against\nmy own soul; and, by using unlawful means to support my natural life,\nshould lose that spiritual life, which consists in the divine favour; or\nrather the meaning is,\n\n_2dly_, That it is by the word of God\u2019s power that our lives are upheld;\nwhich power, though it be ordinarily exerted in the use of means, by\napplying that proper food, which God gives us; yet this power can\nsustain us without it, when we are called, in an extraordinary manner by\nhim, to depend upon it, and have ground to conclude, as our Saviour now\nhad, that our dependence should not be in vain. Hitherto he had depended\nupon it, for almost forty days, since he was first brought into the\nwilderness; and therefore he concluded, that it was his duty to exercise\nthe same dependence, so long as he was there.\n\n_Secondly_, The second temptation was that, in which Satan endeavoured\nto persuade him to cast himself down from a pinnacle of the temple,\nexpecting that God would preserve him safe from danger; pretending that\n_he would give his angels charge concerning him, and in their hands they\nshould bear him up, lest, at any time, he should dash his foot against a\nstone_. This was a snare laid by the subtle adversary, for his life; and\nherein we may observe,\n\n1. That as, in the former temptation, he solicited him to distrust the\nprovidence of God, and our Saviour\u2019s reply to it, contains an intimation\nof his firm resolution to depend upon it, for his farther preservation,\nthough without the necessary food of life; now he tempts him, since he\nis resolved to depend upon the power and providence of God, to do it, in\nan unlawful way, which is no other than a presuming on the divine\nprotection, without a sufficient warrant.\n\n2. He tempts him to the sin of self-murder, which would be the\nconsequence of his presumption; for, if providence did not preserve him,\nwhich he had not sufficient ground to conclude that it would, when\nengaged in an unlawful action, such as throwing himself down from the\ntemple would have been, this certainly would have proved his death. And\nthe tempter had something farther than this in view, namely, to put a\nstop to the work of our redemption, and defeat the great design of\nChrist\u2019s coming into the world; for, if he had died this way, by his own\nhands, he would have contracted guilt, and brought a dishonour to the\ndivine name, rather than have given satisfaction to divine justice, and\nfinished the work he was sent into the world about.\n\n3. In this, Satan tempts him also to a vain-glorious, and fruitless\naction, which was far from answering any valuable end: his throwing\nhimself down from the top of the temple, among the people, who were\ngathered together in that public place of resort, might, it is true,\nhave amused them, when seeing a person flying through the air; but it\nwould not have been an expedient to confirm their faith, since there was\nno explicit appeal to this miracle for the confirmation of any contested\ndoctrine; and therefore it would have contradicted the general design of\nhis working miracles, and, in that respect, been unlawful. Had he been,\nindeed, at this time, at the bottom of the temple, disputing with the\nJews about his mission, and offering to confirm it, by such a miracle as\nthey should chuse; and, had they insisted on it, that he should go up to\nthe top of the temple, and cast himself down amongst them, and signified\nthat this miracle should decide the controversy, for their conviction, I\ndon\u2019t apprehend that it would have been unlawful for him to have done\nit; nor would it have been an instance of presumption for him, to expect\nthe divine protection in so doing. But the case was otherwise\ncircumstanced at present; the devil, who was assaulting him in the\nwilderness (as was before observed) was no proper subject of conviction;\nand none of his people were present, to desire that this miracle should\nbe wrought, that they might believe.\n\nHaving thus considered the matter of the second temptation in general,\nit may not be amiss for us to enquire into the meaning of those words,\nin ver 5. which are generally considered, as preparatory to it: thus it\nis said, _The devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on\na pinnacle of the temple_. The most common opinion of those, who give\ntheir sense of this scripture, is, that the devil had power over the\nbody of Christ, to carry it from place to place; which they reckon not\nto be an improbable supposition, from the account that some give, who\nwrite on the subject of witchcraft, of persons being so carried by him\nin a preternatural way: but these relations have not much weight in\nthem; and many persons of judgment question the truth thereof; but\nwhether they be true or false, it makes nothing for this purpose, for\nwhich they are brought. We do not question, but that the devil, by\ndivine permission, might carry persons, by a violent motion, from place\nto place; but whether our Saviour was carried by him from the wilderness\nto the top of the temple, is the question to be debated. They, who\nsuppose this to have been really done, either think that Christ went\nthere together with, and at the instigation of the devil, without any\nthing preternatural in his being conveyed there by him; or else, that\nthe devil carried him there from the wilderness through the air; the\nlatter of which is the most commonly received opinion: but we cannot see\nsufficient reason to acquiesce in either of them.\n\n(1.) As to the former of these opinions, I cannot think it lawful for\nour Saviour to go from the wilderness to the temple at the instigation\nof the devil, for that would be to go in the way of temptation, without\na divine warrant. Had the Spirit of God carried him thither, and\nencouraged him to throw himself down from thence, it had been his duty\nto have done it, as much as it was to abide in the wilderness, being led\nthere by the Holy Spirit: But as it would have been unlawful for him to\ncome into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil, so it would be no\nless unlawful to go from thence to the temple, at his desire.\n\nMoreover, it may be greatly questioned, whether our Saviour was fit to\ntake so long a journey, as from the wilderness to the temple, after he\nhad fasted forty days, and, it may be, his strength impaired thereby.\nAnd, indeed, when we read, Luke iv. 14. of his return out of the\nwilderness into his own country, it was by the power of the Spirit,\nwhich supplied his want of strength, for so great a journey; therefore,\nas his coming there was by the Spirit, his safe conduct back again was\nby the same Spirit. And we cannot suppose that he went out of the\nwilderness till the Spirit carried him out into his own country;\ntherefore it does not appear that he went to the temple by the\nsolicitation of the devil, to be tempted by him there, and afterwards\nreturned to the wilderness, to submit to his last temptation.\n\n(2.) We cannot altogether give into the other opinion, which, as was\nbefore observed, is the most common, namely, that the devil was\npermitted to carry our Saviour through the air, and set him on a\npinnacle of the temple, (which seems to be the more direct and literal\nsense of the words of the evangelist, relating to this matter) for the\nfollowing reasons.\n\n_1st_, The pinnacle of the temple, upon which the devil is supposed to\nhave set our Saviour, was, as some writers observed, the sharp point, or\napex, or extremity, of a cone, on which it was not possible for the\nsmallest bird to perch; therefore a man could not stand upon it, and\nconsequently Christ could not be said to be sit upon it.\n\nTo this, it is true, it is generally replied, that by his being set on a\npinnacle of the temple, is meant his being set upon one of the\nbattlements, near one of the spires of the temple, on which men may\nconveniently stand. Here they suppose the devil placed our Saviour, and\nthen tempted him to cast himself down from thence. But suppose this be\nsufficient to account for those words that speak of Christ\u2019s being set\non a pinnacle of a temple, and so enervates the force of this reason\nagainst it, let it be farther considered,\n\n_2dly_, That it does not seem probable that the devil should have so\nmuch power over our Saviour, so as to carry him from place to place at\nhis will: But if it be replied to this, that it contains no absurdity\nfor God to suffer it; nor was it any moral evil in Christ to be thus\ncarried, who must be supposed herein to be altogether passive; let it be\nfarther considered,\n\n_3dly_, That if the devil really carried him through the air, from the\nwilderness to the temple, this could not well be done, in an invisible\nway; for that is contrary to the nature of things; for even the motion\nof a bird, which is a far less creature, through the air, if it be in\nthe day time, is not invisible. Now if this preternatural motion of our\nSaviour\u2019s body through the air was visible, how comes it to pass that no\nnotice was taken of it by the Jews, which would have been as remarkable\nan occurrence, as his flying from a pinnacle of the temple to the\nground? Some of them, doubtless, would have been amused at it, and\nprobably it would have given them occasion to have said something\nconcerning this preternatural event; and others, it may be, would have\nreproached him for it; and from his flying by the power of the devil,\nwould have taken occasion to say, that his other miracles were wrought\nby the same power, which would have given umbrage to the objection, when\nthey said, _He casteth out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of the\ndevils_.\n\nIf it be farther objected, that the devil might carry him to the top of\nthe temple by night, and so his motion through the air not be observed.\nThis seems very improbable; for then he must continue there all night,\ntill the people were gathered together the next day on the plain, at the\nfoot thereof, otherwise his casting himself down from thence, would not\nhave answered the end designed thereby, there being none of the Jews\npresent to observe the miracle; and so the devil might have spared the\npains of carrying him to a pinnacle of the temple, and might have as\nwell tempted him to have cast himself down from a precipice in the\nwilderness. We own, notwithstanding, that it might be replied to this,\nthat the devil might raise a thick fog in the air in the day-time, so\nthat the people could not see him conveyed from the wilderness to the\ntemple: But, though this be possible, it doth not seem probable,\nespecially when we consider the other reasons brought against this\nsupposition in general; therefore we must have recourse to some other\nsense, in which this scripture is to be understood.\n\nAccordingly some suppose that this was only done in a vision, and that\nhe continued all this time in the wilderness; which will in some\nmeasure, account for several difficulties, that would arise from the\nsupposition, of the devil\u2019s having power over him to carry him from\nplace to place; and this agrees with those other scriptures, that speak\nof his being tempted forty days in the wilderness. Nevertheless, this\nsense does not appear very probable, as it supposes the devil to have\nhad a greater power over Christ\u2019s imagination, than can readily be\nallowed of. And it seems to contain an absurdity in this respect; that\nChrist could not be said to work a miracle, by throwing himself from a\npinnacle of the temple, if he were all that while standing in the\nwilderness; and what proof would that have been of his being the Son of\nGod?\n\n_Object._ If it be objected to this, that many things are said to be\ndone, in vision, by the prophets, which could not well be said to be\ndone otherwise; as the prophet Ezekiel, when he was among the captives\nin Babylon, is said _to be took by a lock of his head, and, by the\nSpirit, lifted up between the earth and the heaven, and brought in the\nvisions of God to Jerusalem_, Ezek. viii. 3. the meaning of which is,\nthat he had an impression hereof made on his imagination, not much\nunlike to a dream, which inclined him, at the same time, to think\nhimself carried to Jerusalem, and to behold the idolatry that was\npractised there.\n\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that this was a divine impression\nupon the soul of the prophet; and we are not, from hence, inclined to\nthink, that because God has sometimes appeared in vision to his people,\nthat the devil was suffered to do so, with respect to our Saviour, or to\nhave power over his imagination, to give it that disturbance, that would\nresult from hence.\n\nTherefore there is another sense, a little different from this, in which\nwe cannot but acquiesce, though not without great deference to those who\nare otherwise minded, namely, that the devil had neither power over\nChrist\u2019s body, nor actually carried him from the wilderness to a\npinnacle of the temple, on the one hand, nor had he power to give\ndisturbance to his imagination on the other: But that he tempted, or\nendeavoured to persuade him to go with him to Jerusalem, which is called\nthe holy city, and then to go up to the top of the temple, and so cast\nhimself down among the people.\n\n_Object._ The principal objection that is brought against this sense of\nthe words, is taken from its being contrary to the literal, or\ngrammatical sense thereof, inasmuch as the devil is said _to take him up\ninto the holy city, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple_; which does\nnot seem to imply barely his discoursing with him of going there, and\ncasting himself down from thence.\n\n_Answ._ The only answer that need be given to this objection, is, that,\nsince what is done in vision, is represented in scripture as though it\nhad been actually done, why may we not suppose, that what is offered in\nconversation, may be represented as though it had been actually done,\nespecially considering, that what was only discoursed of between two\npersons, is sometimes said to be done. As when the chief butler reports\nthe conversation which he and the chief baker had with Joseph in the\nprison, he represents Joseph as doing what he only spake of, when he\nsays, _Me he restored unto mine office, and him he hanged_, Gen. xli.\n13. Therefore there is no absurdity in supposing, that the devil\u2019s\ncarrying our Saviour to Jerusalem, and _setting him on a pinnacle of the\ntemple_, denotes nothing else but his tempting him to go there. And, if\nwe take it in this sense, the temptation is no less subtle, or\npernicious, in the design thereof; and our Saviour\u2019s answer to it, is\nequally opposite, and to the purpose, as though we suppose the devil had\npower to carry him there.\n\nWe shall now consider Christ\u2019s answer to this temptation, which is\ncontained in these words, _Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God_, in\nwhich he refers to the words of Moses, Deut. vi. 16. which though they\nmore immediately relate to the peoples murmuring, and questioning,\nwhether _God was among them or not_, Exod. xvii. 7. upon which occasion\nthe name of the place was called Massah; yet, inasmuch as there are\nvarious ways of tempting God, this general prohibition might well be\napplied by our Saviour to his own case, in answer to Satan\u2019s temptation;\nand then it is as though he should say, I will not tempt the Lord my\nGod, either by desiring a farther proof of my Sonship, which has so\nlately been attested, by a voice from heaven; or rather, I will not\ntempt him, so as to expect his protection, when engaged, according to\nthy desire, in an unlawful action.\n\n_Thirdly_, The third and last temptation, which was the most audacious,\nvile, and blasphemous of all, is contained in ver. 8, 9. in which Satan\nmakes an overture of the _kingdoms of the world, and the glory thereof_,\nto him, provided _he would fall down and worship him_; in which we may\nobserve,\n\n1. Something preparatory to it, when it is said, _The devil taketh him\nup into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of\nthe world, and the glory of them_. Whether this was actually done, or he\nonly tempted him to go up into an high mountain, which was more\nconvenient for this purpose, I will not peremptorily determine. There\nare not so many difficulties attending the supposition, that it was\nactually done, as there were in the former temptation. If it be\nconcluded, that it was actually done, it is very much to be doubted,\nwhether there was any mountain so high, as that he might, from thence\nhave a prospect of the kingdoms of the world; or if there was an\nexceeding high mountain in the wilderness where Christ was tempted, yet,\nif we consider the nature of the vision, there are two things that would\nhinder a person\u2019s seeing the kingdoms of the world, though it were from\nthe highest mountain.\n\n(1.) The convexity, or unevenness of the surface of the earth, which\nwould hinder the strongest eye from seeing many kingdoms of the world;\nbesides, the sight would be hindered by other mountains intervening.\n\n(2.) If there were several kingdoms, or countries, which might be beheld\nfrom the top of an exceeding high mountain, yet the organ of sight is\ntoo weak to reach many miles. Therefore, when Moses was commanded, by\nGod, to go up to the top of mount Pisgah, to take a view of the whole\nland of Canaan, it is generally thought there was something miraculous\nin his strengthening his sight, to see to the utmost bounds thereof;\naccordingly it is said, that the _Lord shewed him all the land_, Deut.\nxxxiv. 1. Now this can hardly be applicable to the case before us,\nrelating to the devil\u2019s shewing our Saviour all the kingdoms of the\nworld; therefore the best and most common sense that is given hereof,\nis, that he made a representation of the kingdoms and glories of the\nworld in the air, and presented them to our Saviour\u2019s view in a moment;\nand a mountain was more convenient for this purpose, than if he had done\nit in a valley; which seems to be the most probable sense of this text.\n\n2. We shall now consider the temptation itself, which is mentioned in\nver. 9. _All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and\nworship me_. The evangelist Luke adds something that is omitted by\nMatthew, as a farther illustration of this temptation namely, that the\n_power_ of conferring a right to the kingdoms of the world, was\n_delivered unto him_; and that _to whomsoever he will he gives it_, Luke\niv. 6. In this temptation, we may observe,\n\n_1st_, The abominable pride and insolence of the devil, and his\nappearing herein to be the father of lies, nothing could be more false,\nthan for him to assert that the world was given to him to dispose of, as\nhe pleased; whatever hand he may have in disposing of it among his\nsubjects, by divine permission: yet he has no right to do this; so that\nherein we may observe his proud and blasphemous insinuation, in\npretending to have a grant from God to dispose of that which he reserves\nin his own hand, to give as he pleases.\n\n_2dly_, All that he pretends to give our Saviour, is only _the kingdoms\nof the world_; and, in exchange for them, he must quit his right to that\nbetter world, which he had, by inheritance, a right to, and a power to\ndispose of, which the devil has not.\n\n_3dly_, He pretends to give our Saviour nothing but what, as God and\nMediator, he had a right to. This Satan maliciously questions, when, by\nthe overture he makes thereof, he insinuates, that he must be beholden\nto him for it.\n\n_4thly_, This he proposes, as an expedient for him, to arrive to glory\nand honour an easier way, than to attain it by sufferings; therefore it\nis as though he should say; thou expected a kingdom beyond this world,\nbut there are many troubles that lie in the way to it; whereas, by\nfollowing my advice, and complying with this temptation, thou mayest\navoid those sufferings, and enter into the present possession of the\nkingdoms and glories of this world; by which, it is probable, he makes\nhim an overture of the whole Roman empire: But this our Saviour\ndespises, for he offered it, who had no right to give it; and the terms,\non which the overture was made, were very dishonourable; and the honour\nitself was such, as he did not value, for his kingdom was not of this\nworld. If he had aimed at earthly grandeur, he might easily have\nattained it; for we read, that he might once, not only have been made a\nking, but that the people intended to come and _make him so by force_,\nJohn vi. 15. upon which occasion, he discovered the little value he had\nfor this honour, by his retiring from them into a _mountain himself\nalone_, rather chusing to continue in the low estate, which he designed\nto submit to in this world, as a man of sorrows, and acquainted with\ngrief.\n\nThus concerning the overture made by Satan to our Saviour. Now let us\nconsider the condition on which he made it, namely, that he _should fall\ndown and worship him_; in which we may observe his pride, in pretending\nto have a right to divine honour, and how he attempts to usurp the\nthrone of God, and that to such a degree, that no one must expect\nfavours from him, without giving him that honour, that is due to God\nalone.\n\nAgain, he boldly and blasphemously tempts Christ to abandon and withdraw\nhimself from his allegiance to God, and, at the same time, to deny his\nown deity, as the object of worship, and thereby to cast away that crown\nof glory, which he has by nature, and to put it on the head of his\navowed enemy. Thus concerning the third and last temptation; we may\nconsider,\n\n3. Christ\u2019s reply to it, together with the repulse given to the\nadversary, and victory obtained over him, who hereupon _departed from\nhim_; where we may observe,\n\n(1.) That he again makes use of scripture, referring to what is said\ntherein, in different words, though the sense be the same, _Thou shalt\nfear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and to him shalt thou cleave_,\nDeut. vi. 13. and chap. x. 20. This is a duty not only founded in\nscripture, but in the law of nature, and may be proved from the\nperfections of God, and our relation to him, as creatures.\n\n(2.) Our Saviour detests the temptation with the greatest abhorrence,\ncan no longer bear to converse with the blasphemer, and therefore says,\n_Get thee hence, Satan_. He commands him to be gone, and Satan\nimmediately leaves him, being, as it were, driven away by his almighty\npower. This is more than we can do; nevertheless, in the like case, we\nought, as the apostle did, to _beseech the Lord that he might depart\nfrom us_, 2 Cor. xii. 8. or, to use our Saviour\u2019s words on another\noccasion, _The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan_. Thus Christ\u2019s temptations,\nthough very grievous and afflictive, were not only surmounted, but the\nadversary, that assaulted him, was overcome by him, in his own\nPerson,[214]\n\nFrom what hath been said, concerning Christ\u2019s temptations, we infer,\n\n_1st_, The desperate and unparalleled boldness of Satan, in that though\nhe knew well enough that Christ was the Son of God, and therefore able\nnot only to resist, but to destroy him; yet he should venture thus to\nassault him: whereas, at other times, he seems to be afraid of him,\nwhich occasioned him to say, _Art thou come to destroy us before the\ntime?_ Mark i. 24. and elsewhere, _Art thou come to torment us before\nthe time?_ Matt. viii. 29. Besides, he knew, that by this action, his\nown guilt and misery would be increased; but what will not malice, and a\ndeep-rooted hatred of God and godliness, prompt persons to! The attempt\nwas certainly most unfeasable, as well as prejudicial to himself. Did\nSatan suppose that he should gain a victory over him? Could he think,\nthat he, who was God, as well as man, was not more than a match for him?\nIt may be, he might hope, that though the human nature of Christ were\nunited to the divine, yet it might be left to itself; and then he\nthought it more possible to gain some advantages against it, which was a\ngroundless supposition, and altogether unbecoming the relation that\nthere is between these two natures: and it was also impossible that he\nshould be overcome, inasmuch as he was filled with the Holy Ghost from\nhis first conception, and the unction which he had received from the\nHoly Ghost, would have effectually secured him from falling. Whether the\ndevil knew this, or no, he did not consider it; and therefore this\nattempt against our Saviour, was an instance of the most stupendous\nfolly in him, who is described as the old serpent for his great\nsubtilty.\n\n_2dly_, From Christ\u2019s temptation, we may infer the greatness of his\nsufferings. It could not but be grievous to him to be insulted,\nattacked, and the utmost endeavours used to turn him aside from his\nallegiance to God, by the worst of his enemies. And, as Satan\u2019s\ntemptations are not the smallest part of the affliction of his people,\nthey cannot be reckoned the smallest part of his own; nevertheless, the\nissue thereof was glorious to himself, and shameful to the enemy that\nattacked him.\n\n_3dly_, This affords encouragement to believers, under the various\ntemptations they are exposed to. They are not, indeed, to think it\nstrange that they are tempted, inasmuch as they are herein conformed to\nJesus Christ, the Captain of their salvation; but they may, from\nChrist\u2019s temptation, be instructed that it is not a sin to be tempted,\nthough it be a sin to comply with Satan\u2019s temptations; and therefore\nthat they have no ground to conclude, as many do, that they are not\nGod\u2019s children, because they are tempted. Moreover, they may not only\nhope to be made partakers of Christ\u2019s victory, as the fruits and effects\nthereof redound to the salvation of his people; but to receive help and\nsuccour from him when they are tempted, as he, who _suffered, being\ntempted, is able to succour them that are tempted_, Heb. ii. 18. Thus\nconcerning Christ\u2019s humiliation, as tempted.\n\n4. Christ humbled himself, in being subject to those sinless\ninfirmities, which were either common to the human nature, or\nparticularly accompanying that low condition in which he was. Some of\nthose afflictions, which he endured, took their rise from the sin or\nmisery of others: thus he is said to have been _afflicted in all the\nafflictions of his people_, Isa. lxiii. 9. which is an instance of that\ngreat sympathy and compassion which he bare towards them. Sometimes he\nwas grieved for the degeneracy and apostacy of the Jewish nation, the\ncontempt they cast on the gospel, whereby his ministry, though\ndischarged with the greatest faithfulness, was, through the unbelief of\nthose among whom he exercised it, without its desired success: thus he\nis represented by the prophet, as complaining, _I have laboured in vain;\nI have spent my strength for nought and in vain_, chap. xlix. 4. and,\nwhen he had almost finished his ministry among them, and looked upon\nJerusalem as a self-ruined people, _He beheld the city and wept over\nit_, Luke xix. 41. And, besides this, he was sometimes grieved for the\nremainders of corruption, and the breakings forth thereof in those whom\nhe loved, in a distinguishing manner; thus he was sometimes afflicted in\nhis own spirit, by reason of the hardness of the heart of his disciples,\nand the various instances of their unbelief.\n\nThese afflictions, more especially, might be called relative, as the\noccasion thereof was seated in others: but there were many afflictions\nwhich he endured that were more especially personal; such as hunger,\nthirst, fatigue, weariness in travelling to and fro in the discharge of\nhis public ministry; and that poverty and want of the common necessaries\nof life, which he submitted to, whose divine bounty supplies the wants\nof all creatures. These, and many other sufferings, he endured in life,\nwhich were agreeable to that state of humiliation, in which he was,\nduring the whole course thereof. And this leads us,\n\n_Secondly_, To consider his humiliation immediately before, as well as\nin and after his death.\n\nFootnote 208:\n\n \u0395\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03b5.\n\nFootnote 209:\n\n _When we consider Christ as Mediator, from all eternity, we include,\n in this idea, his human nature, as what was to be assumed in time.\n There is a prolepsis in such a mode of speaking; as, when he is said\n to be_ the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world; _in the same\n sense he might be said to be man from the foundation of the world; and\n so we understand it, when we speak of him as God-man Mediator, from\n all eternity._\n\nFootnote 210:\n\n _By Christ\u2019s mediatorial acts, we mean every thing that he did and\n suffered, in the whole course of his obedience, unto death. This is\n not to be considered in a proleptic sense, as what he did as Mediator,\n before his incarnation, may be said to be, as he might then, in some\n respects, be said to execute his prophetical or kingly offices, as\n Mediator, or as one who designed in the fulness of time, to take our\n nature into union with his divine Person._\n\nFootnote 211:\n\n _See Bellarm. Tom. I. Lib. IV. cap. 1. who pretends that it is\n universally held by them, when he says_, Catholicorum, communis\n sententia fuit, Christi animam ab ipsa sua creatione repletam scientia\n & gratia; ita ut nihil postea didicerit quod antea nesciret, nec ullam\n actionem fecerit aut facere potuerit qu\u00e6 emendatione eguerit. Ita\n docent cum magistro omnes Theologi & etiam omnes Patres. _This he\n endeavours to maintain by arguments, which I shall not enter into the\n particular account of._\n\nFootnote 212:\n\n _This seems to be a better sense of the text, than what is given by\n some, who suppose, that is was an accomplishment of what is foretold,\n by the prophets, concerning his being_ \u05e0\u05e6\u05e8 _Netzar, the Branch, in\n Isa. xi. 1. Jer. xiii. 5. Zech. vi. 12. for that refers to his being\n of the seed of David, and not to the place of his abode, so that he\n could not be called the Branch because he dwelt in Nazareth. Others\n suppose, he is so called from_ \u05e0\u05d6\u05d9\u05e8 _Nazir, which signifies, in its\n application, one that dwelt in Nazareth, and, in its derivation, one\n that is separated, and that either to God, as the Nazarites were of\n old, or from men, by some peculiar marks of infamy, or reproach, cast\n upon him, as Joseph is said to have been, in Gen. xlix. 26._ separate\n from his brethren. _These do, in effect assert the same thing that we\n have observed, viz. that it is the concurrent sense of all the\n prophets, that he should be in a low and humble state, of which his\n residing in Nazareth was a particular instance._\n\nFootnote 213:\n\n _Some ancient and modern writers have supposed, that our Saviour\n provided for the necessities of his parents in a miraculous way; but\n the argument, which they bring to prove this, is not sufficiently\n conclusive, namely, that when he wrought his first public miracle_, in\n Cana of Galilee, _mentioned in John_ ii. _his mother desired him to\n work a miracle to supply them at the marriage-feast with wine, ver. 3.\n which, they suppose, she would never have thought of, had he not, some\n time before this, wrought miracles in private to supply her\n necessities, or provide food for her family: but this does not follow,\n from her desiring him to do it now, since she might know, that, when\n he was entered on his public ministry, he was to work miracles: and\n therefore desired him, on this occasion, to put forth the first\n instance of his divine power therein. Again, this is said to be the_\n beginning of miracles which he did in Cana of Galilee, _ver. 11. and,\n probably, the first miracle that he wrought in any place; and, indeed,\n his reply to her, when she desired that he would work this miracle,\n seems to imply, that he had never wrought miracles to provide for her\n family, when he says_, Woman, what have I to do with thee? _q. d._ _my\n working miracles is no part of that obedience Which I owe to thee, nor\n art thou to expect any private advantage thereby, for these are to be\n wrought with another view._\n\nFootnote 214:\n\n This portion of scripture has been subjected to much examination,\n which has resulted in a variety of opinions with respect to the things\n contained in it. We suppose the major part of Christians take the\n whole as a literal representation of the facts; such seem to choose\n the safest side. There is another opinion, which is entertained by\n many; that the whole was a vision; the Saviour\u2019s being in the\n wilderness; his fasting for forty days; the several temptations; and\n the relief afforded by the angels.\n\n This latter interpretation is an assumption of unwarrantable latitude\n in the interpretation of the word of God. All are realities, even the\n presence and temptations of Satan, and the resistance given him; but\n the temptations may have been proposed to the Saviour, when exhausted\n with hunger, and when sunk into some species of waking vision, little\n distinguishable from a dream.\n\n Satan has not the power of forcing men into sin; his temptations are\n always disguised; for the knowledge that they are such, is the\n strongest motive for resisting them; if therefore Satan had discovered\n himself to Jesus in a visible form, it would not only have been\n contrary to his usual course, but must have ensured him a defeat.\n\n The replies of Christ were in every instance by scriptures\n recollected, which leads us to think that it was all before the eye of\n his mind only; also one of Satan\u2019s temptations was from scripture;\n these things well accord with its having been in vision.\n\n The changes of place seem to have been too sudden, and also\n impracticable. He was in the wilderness when the temptations began,\n and when they ended; which agrees with the supposition that his rapid\n transition to a pinnacle of the temple, and from thence to a very high\n mountain, were only in idea.\n\n It is very unaccountable that he should have been transported to the\n battlements of the temple for a dangerous place, when the country\n afforded precipices enough, and still more so, that this could have\n taken place without publick observation; but such flights of the\n imagination, when the body is fainting with hunger, would not be\n extraordinary; nor would it excite any wonder, if the person in such\n exigency should find Satan occupied in giving a turn to his ideas.\n There is not a mountain on earth from whence all the kingdoms are\n visible; here therefore we are obliged to give up the literal sense,\n and may discover an index to the interpretation of the other\n temptations.\n\n It is not called a vision; in like manner neither did Micaiah nor\n Jacob denominate their visions. They represented what appeared to\n them; and so we presume Jesus related these things to his disciples\n just as they appeared to his mind.\n\n Satan, though he can and does in various ways, by external and\n internal means, through the medium of our bodies, suggest thoughts,\n and thus take possession of our hearts in a certain sense; yet he\n knows not our thoughts; it is the attribute of God only to search the\n heart. Every thing acted by Satan in this instance could have taken\n place without his knowing the mind of Christ.[215] If it had not been\n in vision, then Jesus must have spoken audibly his respective answers;\n Satan would have known them, and, we presume, in some instance\n replied; but there is not one reply of Satan, which is an additional\n proof that he suggested the temptations, and the Saviour resisted them\n by mental answers, with which the enemy was unacquainted. Adopting\n this general view, the particular parts will be easily understood.\n\nFootnote 215:\n\n It is highly probable that Satan did not know that this was the\n Christ; he speaks doubtfully of his being the \u201cSon of God;\u201d this he\n had heard, we suppose, at his baptism, a short time before. Satan is\n not omnipresent, nor omniscient, and probably knew less than the\n angels of these things which they desired to pry into. Christ\u2019s\n divinity was chiefly concealed thirty years, not always shown in his\n life, nor at his death. It was the man only that could be thus humbled\n and tempted; God neither tempts nor can be tempted by any.\n\n\n\n\n Quest. XLIX., L.\n\n\n QUEST. XLIX. _How did Christ humble himself in his death?_\n\n ANSW. Christ humbled himself in his death, in that having been\n betrayed by Judas, forsaken by his disciples, scorned and rejected\n by the world, condemned by Pilate, and tormented by his persecutors,\n having also conflicted with the terrors of death, and the powers of\n darkness, felt and borne the weight of God\u2019s wrath, he laid down his\n life an offering for sin, enduring the painful, shameful, and cursed\n death of the cross.\n\n QUEST. L. _Wherein consisted Christ\u2019s humiliation after his death?_\n\n ANSW. Christ\u2019s humiliation after his death, consisted in his being\n buried, and continuing in the state of the dead, and under the power\n of death, till the third day, which hath been otherwise expressed in\n these words, _He descended into hell_.\n\nIn considering the subject matter of these answers, we are led to take a\nview of our Saviour, in the last stage of life, exposed to those\nsufferings which went more immediately before, or attended his death.\nAnd,\n\nI. Let us consider him in his sufferings in the garden, when his soul\nwas exceeding sorrowful, even unto death; and he desired his disciples,\nnot only as an instance of their sympathy with, and regard to him in his\nagony, that they would tarry at a small distance from him, while he went\na little farther, and prayed, as one that tasted more of the bitterness\nof that cup, which he was to drink, than he had done before; but pressed\nthis upon them, as what was necessary to their own advantage, when he\nsays, _Watch and pray that ye enter not into temptation_, Matt, xxvii.\n38, 39. 41. But they seemed very little concerned, either for his\ndistress, or their own impending danger; for, when he returned, he found\nthem asleep, and upbraids them for it, _What, could ye not watch with me\none hour?_ ver. 40. and afterwards, though he had given them this first\nkind and gentle reproof, for their unaccountable stupidity, and repeated\nhis charge, that they should watch and pray; yet, when he came a second\ntime, he found them asleep again, ver. 43. This was, doubtless, an\naddition to his afflictions, that they, who were under the highest\nobligation to him, should be so little concerned for him.\n\nII. After this he was betrayed by Judas, a pretended friend, which added\nto the affliction. This does not argue any unwillingness in him to\nsuffer, as is evident from his own words, some time before, viz. _I have\na baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be\naccomplished?_ Luke xii. 50. As also from his going up to Jerusalem with\nthat design, as knowing that his hour was at hand. How easily might he\nhave declined this journey, had he been unwilling to suffer? And, if he\nthought it his duty to be at Jerusalem, at the feast of the passover,\nwhich was not absolutely necessary, (for all were not obliged to come\nthere at the feast) he might, notwithstanding, had he been unwilling to\nsuffer, have went there privately: but, instead of that, he made a more\npublic entrance into it than was usual, riding in triumph, and accepting\nof the loud acclamations and hosannas of the multitude, which, any one\nmight suppose, would draw forth the envy of his inveterate enemies, and\nsharpen their malice against him, and thereby hasten the execution of\ntheir bloody design.\n\nAgain, that he did not suffer unwillingly, appears, in that, when the\nband of officers, being led by Judas, was sent to apprehend him, _He\nasks them, whom seek ye? They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth_; Jesus\nsaith unto them, _I am he_; upon which we read, that _they went\nbackward, and fell to the ground_, John xviii. 4-6. and gave him an\nopportunity to make his escape, had he intended to decline these last\nsufferings: but he not only delivered himself into their hands, but\nprohibited the overture of a rescue, which Peter attempted in his\nfavour, ver. 10, 11. As to what concerns his being betrayed into the\nhands of his enemies, by one of his disciples, this is often mentioned,\nas a very considerable part of his sufferings: the price which the\ntraitor demanded, or which was the most they would give for this\nbarbarous and inhuman action, was thirty pieces of silver.[216] This\nbeing foretold by the prophet, is represented as an instance of the\nhighest contempt that could be cast upon him: he calls it _a goodly\nprice that I was prized at of them_, Zech. xi. 13. it was the price of a\n_servant_, or slave, when _pushed by the ox, so that he died_, Exod.\nxxi. 32. This shews how little he was valued, by those who were under\nthe highest obligations to him. And providence permitted it to be a part\nof his sufferings, that we may learn from hence, that hypocrites\nsometimes mix themselves with his faithful servants, who,\nnotwithstanding the mask, or disguise of religion, which they affect,\ntheir hypocrisy will, one time or other, be made manifest. This was not\na wound given by an open enemy, but a pretended friend, and therefore\nmore grievous; and this might also give occasion to some to cast a\nreproach on his followers (for what will not malice sometimes suggest)\nas though they were all like him; and their pretence to religion were no\nmore than hypocrisy.\n\nIII. Another instance of Christ\u2019s humiliation was, in that he was\nforsaken by his disciples: thus we read, that when he was apprehended,\n_all the disciples forsook him and fled_, Matt. xxvi. 56. from whence we\nmay learn,\n\n1. How unable the best of God\u2019s people are to exercise that holy courage\nand fortitude that is necessary in trying dispensations of providence,\nespecially when destitute of extraordinary assistance from the Spirit of\nGod.\n\n2. This was ordered by providence, to add weight to Christ\u2019s sufferings,\nin which none stood with him to comfort or strengthen him; as the\napostle Paul says, _At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men\nforsook me_, 2 Tim. iv. 16. which could not be otherwise than a very\nafflictive circumstance; nevertheless,\n\n3. There was a farther design of providence in permitting this\ncowardise, namely, that they might not suffer with him; and therefore it\nis observed, by one of the evangelists, that when our Saviour was\napprehended by the officers, he desired leave of them, that his\ndisciples might _go their way_, John xviii. 8. If they had been\napprehended, it may be, they might have been accused, condemned, and\ncrucified with him; which might give occasion to some to suppose, that\nthey bore a part in the purchase of our redemption; which belonged to\nhim alone; and therefore it is said, concerning him, _I have trodden the\nwine press alone, and of the people there was none with me_, Isa. lxiii.\n3. To this we may add,\n\nIV. That it was another part of Christ\u2019s sufferings, that he was\ndisowned and denied by Peter; since this would give occasion to some to\nthink that he was not worthy to be acknowledged by his friends, while he\nwas insulted and persecuted by his enemies. In the account the\nevangelist gives of this matter, Matt. xxvi. 69-72. we may observe,\n\n1. That Peter was not, at this time, in the way of his duty, though,\nprobably, it was love to our Saviour, and a desire to see the issue of\nhis trial, that might occasion his going into the High Priest\u2019s Palace;\nyet this he had no call to do at present, it was a running into the\nmidst of danger, especially considering our Saviour, as in the scripture\nbut now referred to, had got leave for his disciples to withdraw. This,\nPeter ought to have done: for, as we are not to decline sufferings when\ncalled to bear them, so we are not, without a sufficient warrant, to\nrush into them, to go, as he did, in the way of temptation.\n\n2. It was not only shame that induced him to deny our Saviour, but fear;\nfor, it is probable, he might be informed that the High Priest asked him\nconcerning his disciples, as well as his doctrine, therefore he might\nthink, that by owning him and his doctrine, he might be exposed to\nsuffer with him; which, notwithstanding his self-confident resolution a\nlittle before, when he said, _Though I should die with thee, yet I will\nnot deny thee_, ver. 35. he was now afraid to do.\n\n3. He was not only accosted by the damsel, who told him, that he was\nwith Jesus of Galilee; but he was attacked by _one of the servants of\nthe High Priest, being his kinsman, whose ear Peter cut off_, who said,\n_Did I not see thee in the garden with him?_ John xviii. 26. This still\nincreased his fear; for he not only appeared as a witness against him,\nand charged him with having been with him in the garden, but also\nintimates, that he attempted to rescue him, and that by force of arms,\nwhich, as he apprehended might render him obnoxious to the lash of the\nlaw as endeavouring to make a riot, for which he concluded that he was\nliable to suffer punishment; and the person, whose ear he cut off, being\nthe High Priest\u2019s kinsman, this would lay him still more open to his\nresentment. Thus Peter, through the weakness of his faith, and the\nprevalency of his fear, denied our Saviour; and this was thrice repeated\nwith curses and execrations annexed to it, which still increased his\nguilt, tended to expose religion, as well as cast a reproach on our\nSaviour, who was then bearing his testimony to the truth.\n\nV. Another instance of Christ\u2019s humiliation was, that he was scorned and\nrejected by the world; scorned, as though he had been inferior to them.\nThus he is represented by the Psalmist, as saying, _I am a worm and no\nman; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. All they that see\nme, laugh me to scorn; they shoot out the lip, they shake the head_,\nPsal. xxii. 6, 7. This was, doubtless, a malicious design, to fill the\nminds of men with prejudice against it, and make them ashamed to own it.\nOur Saviour puts these both together, when he speaks of persons being\n_ashamed of him, and of his words_, Mark viii. 38. They had often\nrejected him, by their unbelief; and this crime was the greater, because\nthey were under the greatest obligations to the contrary. How often did\nhe invite them, in the most affectionate manner, to come to him, and\nannex hereunto a promise of eternal life? We find, notwithstanding, that\nhe had reason to complain, as he does, _Ye will not come to me, that ye\nmight have life_, John v. 40.\n\nHere we might observe the temper of the Jews, before he appeared\npublickly among them, to have been different from what it was\nafterwards. When John the Baptist, his fore-runner told them, that he\nwould shortly be made manifest to Israel, multitudes flocked to his\nministry, counted him as a great prophet, and rejoiced in his light for\na season, and, at the same time, were baptized, and professed their\nwillingness to yield obedience to Christ. But all this was upon a\ngroundless supposition, that he would appear as an earthly monarch,\nerect a temporal kingdom, bring all other powers into subjection to it,\nand so deliver them from the Roman yoke, and advance them to great\nhonours in the world: but, when they saw it otherwise, and that he\nappeared in a low humbled state, and professed, that his kingdom was not\nof this world, and therefore his subjects must seek for a glory that\nlies beyond it, which cannot be beheld, but by faith, and, in the\nexpectation hereof, take up their cross, and follow him, immediately\nthey were offended in him: thus the prophet foretels, that he should be\nfor a _stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence to both the houses of\nIsrael_, Isa. viii. 14. and the Psalmist styles him, _The stone which\nthe builders refused_, Psal. cxviii. 22. both which predictions are\napplied to Christ by the apostle Peter, 1 Pet. ii. 7, 8. This was also\nforetold by Simeon, concerning our Saviour, when he was in his infancy,\n_Behold this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in\nIsrael, and for a sign, which shall be spoken against_, Luke ii. 43. And\nthis offence taken at him, is intimated to have been almost universal,\nas appeared from the small number that adhered to him, when he was here\non earth, which gave him occasion to say, _Blessed is he whosoever shall\nnot be offended in me_, Matt. xi. 6.\n\nThis treatment he met with throughout the whole course of his ministry,\nwhen they loaded him with the most injurious reproaches: but,\nimmediately before his death, they filled up the measure of their\niniquity, by reproaching him to the utmost; then it is observed that\nthey blasphemed, and cast contempt upon him, with respect to all those\noffices which he executes as Mediator. As to his prophetical office,\nwith what abominable profaneness do they speak of the sacred gift of\nprophecy, which their fathers always counted a peculiar glory, which was\nconferred upon some of them, whereby they were honoured above all other\nnations in the world! And what contempt do they cast on him, who had\nsufficiently proved himself to be greater than all other prophets; when\nas it is said, _They smote him with the palms of their hands, saying,\nProphesy unto us, thou Christ, who is he that smote thee?_ chap. xxvi.\n67, 68. They also expressed their blasphemy in contemning his priestly\noffice, when they say, _He saved others, himself he cannot save_, chap.\nxxvii. 42. and also his kingly, when, in derision, they put on him _a\nscarlet robe, platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and a\nreed in his right hand, and bowed the knee before him, and mocked him,\nsaying, Hail king of the Jews_, ver. 28, 29.\n\nThey also expressed the greatest contempt of him, by preferring a vile\nand notorious criminal, who was a robber, and a murderer, before him;\nand accordingly, as the prophet says, _He was numbered with the\ntransgressors_, as though he had been the greatest of them, whereas he\nhad _done no violence; neither was any deceit in his mouth_, Isa. liii.\n9, 12. Thus the apostle tells them, _Ye denied the Holy One, and the\nJust, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you_, Acts iii. 14. when\nPilate made an overture to release him, they cried, _with one consent,\nNot this man, but Barabbas_, John xviii. 39, 40.\n\nFrom hence we may learn,\n\n1. That the best of men are not to expect to pass through the world\nwithout reproach, or contempt, how exact, innocent or blameless, soever\ntheir conversation be.\n\n2. We are not to judge of persons, or things, especially in matters of\nreligion, merely by the opinion of the world concerning them; since it\nis no uncommon thing for religion itself to be had in contempt, as well\nas those who adhere to it.\n\n3. We ought not to have respect to the praise or esteem of men, as a\nmotive to induce us to choose and adhere to the way of God and\ngodliness: thus our Saviour says, _I receive not honour from men_, John\nv. 41. that is, I value it not, so as to regulate my conversation\nthereby; and then he adds, _How can ye believe which receive honour one\nof another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only_, ver. 44.\n\n4. Let us not think the worse of Christ, or his gospel, because they are\nreproached, but rather, as the apostle adviseth, _Go forth to him\nwithout the camp, bearing his reproach_, Heb. xiii. 13. and not only be\ncontent to bear it, but count it our honour; as he says elsewhere,\nconcerning himself, _God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross\nof our Lord Jesus Christ_, Gal. iv. 14.\n\n5. Let us take heed, that while we seem to honour Christ by our\nprofession, and testify our abhorrence of the contempt that was cast on\nhim, by his enemies, we do not reproach him by our practice; and that\neither by sinning presumptuously, which is called, _A reproaching of the\nLord_, Num. xv. 30. or not by reproving and bearing our testimony\nagainst those who blaspheme and revile him; by which means, we shall\npartake with them in their crime.\n\nVI. Our Saviour was condemned by Pilate. The former indignities offered\nhim, were without any pretence, or form of law; but now he is set before\na court of judicature, and there tried, and sentence passed immediately\nbefore his crucifixion. In this they had no regard to the exercise of\njustice, nor desire to proceed in a legal way with any good and\nhonourable design, but to prevent the inconvenience that would have\narisen from their putting him to death in a riotous and tumultuous\nmanner, without the form of a trial. This they had in some particular\ninstances, at other times, designed, or attempted to do, but they\nthought it not a safe way of proceeding; since they might afterwards\nhave been called to an account for it, by the civil magistrate, as the\ntown-clerk says, upon occasion of the tumult at Ephesus, _We are in\ndanger to be called in question for this day\u2019s uproar_, Acts xix. 40.\nTherefore our Saviour, being apprehended, is brought before Pilate, the\nRoman governor; and there were the chief priests and elders met\ntogether, as his accusers and prosecutors; and the whole process was the\nmost notorious instance of injustice, that ever was practised in any\ncourt of judicature in the world. Whatever pretence of law there might\nbe, the assembly was certainly tumultuous. It is not usual for persons\nwho are tried for capital matters to be insulted, not only by the rude\nmultitude of spectators that are present, but by the judge himself, as\nour Saviour was, being spit upon, buffeted, and smote with the palms of\ntheir hands; and Pilate also, with a sarcastic sneer, unbecoming the\ncharacter of a judge, says, _Behold the Man; Behold your King_, John\nxix. 5, 14. Here we may observe,\n\n1. Concerning his persecutors, that they sought false witnesses against\nhim, that is, they endeavoured to persuade, or bribe any that they could\nfind, among the most vile and profligate wretches, to come in against\nhim; nevertheless, they could not bring this matter to bear for some\ntime: thus, it is said, _They sought false witness against Jesus to put\nhim to death, but found none; yea, though many false witnesses came, yet\nfound they none_, Matt. xxvi. 59, 60. The evidence that many gave was\nnot regarded, and therefore they were set aside; at last they found two,\nwhom they depended on, as legal evidences: but it is observed, that\n_their witness did not agree together_, Mark xiv. 59. and, if they had\nagreed in their testimony, the matter alleged against him was no crime,\nnamely, _We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with\nhands; and, within three days, I will build another made without hands_,\nver. 58. which refers to what he had said when he drove the buyers and\nsellers out of the temple, and foretelling his resurrection from the\ndead, he uses this metaphorical way of speaking; that when they had\ndestroyed this temple, meaning his body, he would raise it up in three\ndays. We will suppose, that the Jews, then present, did not understand\nwhat he meant by this expression, or that he did not explain it, as the\nevangelist does: but let them take it in what sense they would, it\ncarries in it no crime for him to say so; and therefore it is observed,\nthat when this was witnessed against him, though the High Priest urged\nhim to make a reply, _he held his peace, and answered nothing_, because\nthere was nothing alleged worth an answer; the thing he was charged\nwith, carried in it its own confutation, and inferred not the least\ndegree of guilt in him. This his enemies themselves seemed to be\nsensible of; and therefore they ask him this trying question, _Art thou\nthe Christ, the Son of the Blessed?_ expecting that his reply to this\nwould have afforded matter for them to proceed upon his conviction. To\nthis our Saviour gives a direct answer, saying, _I am; and ye shall see\nthe Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the\nclouds of heaven_, ver. 62. Here he was called to give a reply; the\nquestion was worthy of an answer; and therefore he does not, on this\noccasion, hold his peace, but witnessed a good confession, though he\nknew it would cost him his life.\n\n2. Some things may be observed concerning Pilate\u2019s conduct in his trial;\nas,\n\n(1.) He acted contrary to that good advice that was given him by his\nwife; which, because the Evangelist thinks it worthy to be taken notice\nof, as occasioned by a dream, in which she told him, _She had suffered\nmany things because of him_, Matt, xxvii. 19. gives ground to conclude\nthat it was a divine dream, which rendered the advice more solemn, and,\nas such, deserved his regard.\n\n(2.) He acted against the dictates of his own conscience; for _he knew\nthat the chief priests had delivered him for envy_, Matt. xv. 20. and\ntherefore he ought to have stopped all farther proceedings, as in cases\nof malicious prosecutions; and it farther appears that he acted against\nhis conscience, in that he took _water and washed his hands before the\nmultitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just Person_,\nMatt. xxvii. 24.\n\n(3.) He appears to have been a very mean-spirited man, and therefore was\napprehensive that the Jews had he released our Saviour, would have\naccused him to C\u00e6sar, for sparing one whom they would have pretended to\nhave been an usurper, and a rebel, inasmuch as he is styled King of the\nJews. Accordingly he feared that he should have been turned out of his\nplace, or otherwise punished, provided the matter were not fully heard,\nor the misrepresentations that might be made thereof, were believed by\nhim. This seems the main reason of his delivering our Saviour up to\nthem, to be crucified: thus it is observed, that Pilate first sought out\nto release him; but, upon the Jews saying, _If thou let this man go,\nthou art not C\u00e6sar\u2019s friend, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the\njudgment seat_, and, in haste, _delivered him unto them to be\ncrucified_, John xix. 12, 13, 16.\n\n(4.) When he thought it his interest to comply with the Jews in this\nmatter, he did not pass sentence on him himself, it may be, thinking\nthat not so adviseable, as being contrary to the profession he had a\nlittle before this, made of his innocency: but he asked his prosecutors,\nwhat he should do with him? which was a flagrant instance of barbarity\nand injustice, in one who had the character of a judge or\nmagistrate.[217]\n\nVII. Our Saviour was tormented by his persecutors, scourged, buffeted,\nsmitten with the palms of their hands, crowned with thorns, which, as\nmost divines suppose, pierced his head, and drew blood from thence,\nwhich was a part of the torments he endured. And to this we may add,\nthat they compelled him to bear his cross, till his strength was so\nexhausted, that he could carry it no longer; and then they obliged one\nSimon, a Cyrenian, _to bear it_; or, as Luke says _to bear it after\nhim_, John xix. 17. compared with Luke xxiii. 26. that is, as some\nsuppose, to help him to carry it, going behind, and bearing a part of\nthe weight thereof. These things he endured, immediately before his\ncrucifixion, from wicked men, divested of all humanity, as well as\nreligion: but still there is something more afflictive than this, which\nhe endured; accordingly it is farther observed,\n\nVIII. That he conflicted with the terrors of death, felt, and bore the\nweight of God\u2019s wrath; these were the sufferings which he endured, more\nespecially in his soul. From whence we may observe, that the death he\nwas going to endure, was exceeding formidable to him, and accompanied\nwith great terrors; therefore there must certainly be some bitter\ningredient in it, more than in the death of others. If we enquire what\nit was therein that seemed so terrible to him, when many of the martyrs,\nwho have been, as the apostle says, _pressed out of measure above\nstrength_, 2 Cor. i. 8. that is, suffered as much as frail nature could\nwell bear, have endured it without any dread of the wrath of God, the\nsting and bitterness thereof being taken away; why then should our\nSaviour, who never contracted the least degree of guilt, have any\nconflict of this nature in his own spirit? To this it may be replied,\nthat there were some things in his death that rendered it more\nformidable, than it ever was to any of his saints and martyrs. For,\n\n1. It is more than probable that the powers of darkness had a great hand\nin setting before his view the terrors of the wrath of God due to sin,\nwhich none are better able to do, than they who are the subjects\nthereof; and therefore it is observed, in this answer, that he\nconflicted with the terrors of death, and the powers of darkness. The\ndevil is sometimes said to have _the power of death_, Heb. ii. 14. that\nis, if the Spirit of God do not come in with his comforting presence,\nbut Satan be suffered to do what he can to fill the soul with horror, he\nhath certainly power to make death, beyond measure, terrible. His design\nherein, with respect to our Saviour, was either to drive him to despair,\ninduce him to repent of his undertaking what he came into the world\nabout, or, at least, to take some indirect methods to decline\nsufferings. That Satan had some hand in this matter, we may infer from\nwhat our Saviour says, when, considering himself as fallen into the\nhands of his enraged enemies, he tells them, not only that this was\n_their hour_, that is, the time in which they were suffered to express\ntheir rage and malice against him, but that it was the hour of _the\npower of darkness_, Luke xxii. 53.\n\n2. His death was in itself more terrible than the death of his people,\nwhen the sting and bitterness thereof is taken away from them; therefore\nit is farther observed, in this answer, that he felt and bore the weight\nof God\u2019s wrath, which was the punishment of the sins of his people, for\nwhom he suffered. It was upon this account that he is said _to begin to\nbe sore amazed, and to be very heavy_, to cry out, _My soul is exceeding\nsorrowful, even unto death_; and to pray, that, _if it were possible_,\nthis part of his sufferings _might pass from him_, Mark xiv. 33-36. We\ncannot suppose that he was afraid of death; but the wrath of God was\nwhat he principally feared. And, since this wrath is, in itself, so\nterrible, he might well be supposed to be amazed, and exceeding\nsorrowful, at the view thereof, not for his own sin, but ours, and yet\nherein not to be guilty of any sin himself.\n\nThat this may farther appear, let it be considered, that as he _bore our\nsins_, 1 Pet. ii. 14. and _it pleased the Lord to bruise him_ for them,\nIsa. liii. 6. so he bore every thing that was a punishment thereof,\nexcepting some circumstances that are peculiar to us, and were\ninconsistent with his perfect holiness, and the efficacy of his\nsufferings, to take away the guilt of our sin; and therefore we must\nsuppose that he bore, that is, he had an afflictive sense of the wrath\nof God due to it. Nothing less than this could occasion him to sweat\ndrops of blood, in his agony, in the garden. Had there been no\ncircumstance in his death, but barely his leaving this miserable world,\nwherein he had such ill treatment, it would have rendered his stay\ntherein less desirable: but, when he considered those bitter ingredients\nthat were therein, and how he should, when on the cross be forsaken of\nGod, as to his comforting, though not his supporting presence, this made\nhis death more formidable, than the death of any of his people can be\nsaid to be. And this leads us to consider the last part of his\nsufferings; and accordingly it is farther said,\n\nIX. That he endured the shameful, painful, and cursed death of the\ncross. The pains that he endured before, in being buffeted, scourged,\nand crowned with thorns, were very great; but what he suffered, when\nnailed to the cross, and hanging on it till he died, was too great for\nwords to express. His body was, as it were, torn asunder by its own\nweight, and the small and very sensible nerves and fibres thereof\nbroken, by their violent extension. The apostle therefore speaks of it,\nas the most cruel death, as appears by the emphasis he puts on the\nwords, _He humbled himself unto death, even the death of the cross_,\nPhil. ii. 8. This death was a punishment peculiar to the Romans, while\nthe empire was Heathen; but when Christianity obtained in the world, it\nwas forbidden by supreme authority, not only because of the barbarity of\nit, but out of respect and honour to our Saviour, who suffered it.[218]\nAnd therefore we have only some monuments of antiquity that discover\nwhat kind of death it was; but there is enough said of it to give us\nground to conclude, that it was the most cruel, painful, and formidable\ndeath; wherein the body was fastened to, and extended on a tree, or\nstake, driven into the ground for that purpose; the arms extended on a\ntransverse beam; the hands and feet fastened, either by ropes or nails.\nThe former of these, as some suppose, was often used in fastening\npersons to the cross; and, if so, then the nailing our Saviour to it was\nan instance of unusual cruelty; but whether this observation be just, or\nno, is uncertain.\n\nIt appears that our Saviour was nailed to the cross, by the mark and\nprint of the nails remaining after his resurrection, which he shewed to\nThomas for his conviction, John xx. 27. and this greatly tended to\nincrease the pain of his crucifixion, in which the weight of the whole\nbody depended on the hands and feet, which being nervous, are more\nsensible of pain, than many other parts thereof; and, they being wounded\nwith the nails, the pain must be much more exquisite, and this not only\nfor a little while, but for several hours; all which time he felt the\npains of death, and did, as it were, die many deaths in one. This kind\nof death was so cruel, and so excessively tormenting, that some of the\nRoman emperors, who were of a more merciful disposition, when persons,\nfor the highest crimes, had deserved it, notwithstanding ordered, that\nthey should first be slain, and then hanged on a cross, to be exposed to\nshame, or as a terror to others, without suffering those inexpressible\ntortures, which would attend their dying on it. But our Saviour\nsubmitted to all these; and so willing was he to bear them, that when\nthey offered him a mixture of wine and myrrh, as a narcotic, or\nstupifying potion, that he might be less sensible of his pain, which was\nthe only kindness they pretended to shew him, and which is, by many,\nsupposed to be customary in such cases, _he received it not_; which is\nas though he had said, I contemn all your offered assistances to ease my\npain, as much as I do your insults and reproaches; all my ease and\ncomfort shall be derived from heaven, and not from you. Thus concerning\nthe death of the cross, as exceeding painful.\n\nThere is another circumstance observed in this death, namely, that it\nwas shameful. Many think it was styled so, because persons, who suffered\nit, were stripped of all their garments: but I am inclined to think,\nthat this opinion, though almost universally received, is no better than\na vulgar error; for the Romans, who were a civilized nation, would not\nadmit any thing to be done, which is so contrary to the law of nature,\nas this thing would have been, had it been done. Besides, there are\nother circumstances mentioned by the evangelist, Mark xv. 40, 41. which\nfarther argue the improbability thereof.\n\n_Object._ To this it is objected, that the soldiers parted our Saviour\u2019s\ngarments, and divided them among themselves, after they had cast lots\nfor his upper garment, or seamless coat, John xix. 23. which they\nsuppose to have been done before his crucifixion.\n\n_Answ._ But to this it may be replied, that it seems more than probable,\nthat only his upper garment, or seamless coat, was taken from him before\nhe was nailed to the cross, and other garments were not taken till he\nwas dead, and, when he was taken down from it, they were exchanged for\nthose linen garments in which he was buried. This seems evident from the\nwords of the evangelist, who intimates, that his garments were taken off\n_when they had crucified him_. Therefore the principal reason why the\ndeath of Christ is called shameful, as the apostle styles it, when he\nsays, _He despised the shame_, Heb. xii. 2. is because it was a\npunishment inflicted on none but those who were charged with the vilest\ncrimes, or who were slaves; and therefore it is called a servile\npunishment.[219] When any one was made free of Rome, he was exempted\nfrom it; and therefore it was reckoned the highest crime to punish such\nan one with it, because of the reproach thereof.\n\nIt is farther observed, that the death of the cross was a cursed death;\nupon which account the apostle speaks of Christ, as being _made a curse\nfor us, as it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree_,\nGal. iii. 13. For the understanding of which, let it be considered, that\nto be accursed, sometimes signifies to be abandoned of God and man; but\nfar be it from us to assert this concerning the blessed Jesus, who had\ndone no violence, neither was any deceit found in his mouth. Therefore\nthe meaning of that scripture, as applied to him, is only this, that the\ndeath of the cross had a curse annexed to it, and it denotes that the\nperson, who thus suffered, died the death of those who were made a\npublic example, as though they had been abandoned of God. Now though\nChrist\u2019s death had this appearance, yet he was, at the same time, God\u2019s\nbeloved Son, in whom he was well pleased, how much soever he bore the\nexternal marks of God\u2019s wrath, or abhorrence of our sins, for which he\nsuffered. The scripture which the apostle refers to, is in Deut. xxi.\n22, 23. from whence we may take occasion to observe, that, after the\nJews had put persons to death for notorious crimes, they sometimes\nhanged them on a tree, and such were deemed accursed.\n\nThe common punishments, which were ordained, in scripture, to be\ninflicted on malefactors, were burning, slaying with the sword, or\nstoning; and when persons were hanged up before the Lord, that they\nmight be a public spectacle to others, it was done after they were\nslain: thus it is said, that Joshua _smote_ the five kings, _and slew\nthem, and then hanged them on five trees until the evening_, Josh. x.\n26. so David slew the two men that murdered Ishbosheth, and then _hanged\nthem over the pool in Heshbon_, 2 Sam. iv. 12. and, inasmuch as these\nare said to _be hanged before the Lord_, it was a significant sign of\nGod\u2019s righteous judgment inflicted on them for their crimes, upon which\naccount they were said to be cursed: but our Saviour was not liable to\nthe curse of God, as one who had committed any crime that deserved it;\nbut it had respect to the kind of death which he endured for our sins,\nwho were thereby exposed to the curse, or condemning sentence of the\nlaw. Thus concerning Christ\u2019s humiliation in his death.\n\nWe are now to consider his humiliation after his death. Though the\ngreatest part of his humiliation was finished when he yielded up the\nghost, yet his state of humiliation was not fully ended till he rose\nfrom the dead; therefore it is observed in the latter of these answers\nwe are now explaining, that he was buried, and continued under the power\nof death till the third day; which hath been otherwise expressed in\nthese words, _He descended into hell_, as it is contained in that Creed,\nwhich is commonly attributed to the apostles. Here we may observe,\n\n1. That Christ was buried. Before this, while he hanged on the cross, he\nhad, as it was before observed, the visible mark of the curse of God\nupon him, without any desert of his own; and this he was delivered from,\nwhen he was taken down from thence. It was a custom, among the Romans,\nto suffer the bodies of those that were crucified to hang on the cross\ntill they were devoured by wild beasts, or fowls of the air, or turned\nto corruption, unless they were given to their relations to be buried,\nas an act of favour: but, in this instance, we may observe, that\nChrist\u2019s implacable enemies desired that his body might be taken down\nsoon after he was dead; not out of respect to him, but for fear the land\nshould be defiled, as God had ordained in the law, that _if a person\nwere hanged on a tree, his body should not remain all night upon it, but\nmust be buried, lest the land should be defiled_, Deut. xxi. 22, 23. and\nthey were the more importunate that he should be taken down, because of\nthe sanctity of the approaching day, John xix. 31. They petitioned\nPilate for it with one view, and Joseph of Arimathea, ver. 38. with\nanother; he begged the body that he might bury it.\n\nHere we may observe, that, after the Jews had done their worst against\nhim, and he was taken from the cross, there was a becoming honour and\nrespect shewed to his sacred Body; and herein that scripture was\nfulfilled, _He made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his\ndeath_, Isa. liii. 9. which words, indeed, seem to have some difficulty\nin them, as they are thus translated; for, though he was crucified with\nthe wicked, it can hardly be said that he made his grave with them; and\ntherefore I would chuse to render them, as some expositors do,[220] _His\ngrave was appointed_, viz. by his persecutors, to have been _with the\nwicked_, that is, they designed to have thrown him into the common grave\nof malefactors, who had no marks of respect shewn them: but it was\notherwise with Christ, for _he made his grave with the rich_, that is,\nhe was buried in the tomb of Joseph, a rich and honourable counsellor,\nwhere he himself designed to lie, which he had thrown out of the rock\nfor that purpose. This honour, as the prophet observes, was conferred on\nour Saviour, _because he had done no violence; neither was deceit found\nin his mouth_.\n\nThere were several reasons why God ordained that he should be buried,\nand that in such a way and place, as he was; for,\n\n(1.) His burial was a convincing proof to the world that he was really\ndead; so much depended upon his death, that it was thought necessary\nthat there should be an abundant evidence thereof. It is, indeed,\nexpressly said, that _he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost_, John\nxix. 30. and his enemies were convinced thereof, and therefore thought\nit needless to break his legs, as they did those of the thieves, who\nwere crucified with him; providence ordering this, that _that scripture\nshould be fulfilled_, which fore-signified, that a _bone of him should\nnot be broken_. But, besides this, that there might be a farther proof\nthat he was really dead, it is said, that, even when they knew it, they\n_pierced his side_, which, of itself, would have killed him, had he not\nbeen dead: this they did, that they might be sure he was dead, before\nthey took him down from the cross, chap. xix. 33, 34. And it is farther\nobserved, that Pilate, his unjust judge, was resolved to be satisfied\nthat he was really dead, before he gave orders for his being taken down\nfrom the cross: thus it is said, that Pilate _marvelled if he were\nalready dead; and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether\nhe had been any while dead?_ Mark xv. 44. It may be, the reason why they\nwere so inquisitive to know whether he were really dead, or no, was\nbecause he seemed to die in his full strength; for there is something\nremarkable in that expression, when the evangelist says, _Jesus cried\nwith a loud voice, and gave up the ghost_, ver. 37. whereby it appeared,\nthat his spirits were not so much exhausted, but that he might,\naccording to the course of nature, have lived longer; but he seemed by\nan act of his own will, to surrender his soul to God. This was so\nremarkable an occurrence, that it was not merely by accident that it is\nmentioned by the evangelist; and, indeed, it was the means of the\ncenturion\u2019s conviction that he was the Son of God, ver. 39.\n\n(2.) Providence ordered that he should be buried by persons of\nreputation and honour, that so the world might know, that how much\nsoever the rude multitude despised him, persons of figure and character\nin the world paid a due respect to him, John xix. 39, 40.\n\n(3.) It was farther ordained, that he should be buried in a new tomb,\nwherein never man was laid; that so his resurrection might be more fully\ndemonstrated, that none might pretend that another was raised instead of\nhim, since no other was buried in this grave.\n\nThe fine linen, in which his body was wrapped, and the sweet spices, or\nperfumed ointment, with which it was embalmed, was not only agreeable to\nthe method of sepulture, used by the Jews, but it was a public testimony\nof that respect which his friends bore to him, to whom his memory was\nprecious: so that Nicodemus, who, before this, was afraid to come\npublickly to him, or who, as it is said, at the first, came to Jesus by\nnight, _brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, and they took the body of\nJesus, and wound it in linen clothes, with the spices, as the manner of\nthe Jews is to bury_, chap. xix. 30, 40.\n\n2. As Christ died, and was buried, so he continued under the power of\ndeath till the third day; this the apostle calls, _Death\u2019s having\ndominion over him_, Rom. vi. 9. and it must be reckoned a part of his\nhumiliation, as well as the act of dying; for,\n\n_1st_, Though his soul enjoyed the bliss and happiness of heaven,\nimmediately after his death, as he tells the penitent thief, that _that\nday he should be with him in paradise_, Luke xxiii. 43. yet, inasmuch as\nit was, when separate, in a state of imperfection, and had a natural\ndesire, and hope of re-union with the body, this argues that there were\nsome degrees of perfect blessedness, that it was not then possessed of.\n\n_2dly_, So long as he continued under the power of death, he was not\nfully discharged by the justice of God; neither was the work of\nsatisfaction complete, till he was declared to be the Son of God with\npower, and to have fully conquered death and hell, by his resurrection\nfrom the death; this was therefore a part of his humiliation.\n\n_3dly_, His body, while remaining a prisoner in the grave, could not\nactively bring that glory to God, which it did before, or would do after\nits resurrection; and it was, at that time, incapable of the heavenly\nblessedness, and, in particular, of its being so glorious a body, as now\nit is.\n\nAll these things attending the state of separate souls, or the unseen\nstate, into which Christ is said to go, immediately after his death,\nsome call, as it is observed in this answer, his descent into hell,\nwhich is what we are next to consider: but, since this is largely and\njudiciously handled by several writers,[221] I shall insist on it with\nbrevity. And,\n\n[1.] Consider it as founded on scripture, as the judicious Calvin\ndoes,[222] without regard had to its being inserted in any creed of\nhuman composure: thus it is said, _Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell;\nneither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption_, Acts ii. 27.\nwhere it seems, as the author but now mentioned observes, to be put\nbefore his death; and therefore he supposes, that the apostle hereby\nintends the sufferings which our Saviour endured in his soul, which were\nnot, in all respects, unlike the punishment due to sin in hell: and\nherein he is followed by several modern writers; and the principal\nreason, which they assign for it, is, because, as our Surety, he endured\nall the essential parts of that punishment, which our sins had deserved;\nand therefore they suppose, that he endured an afflictive sensation of\nthe wrath of God, which bore some resemblance to that which is endured\nin hell.\n\nBut, though I would not extenuate Christ\u2019s sufferings, especially in\nthat part thereof, that was most formidable to him, which was the cup\nthat he desired, if it were possible, that it might pass from him; nor\ncan we suppose that any thing less than a view which he had of the wrath\nof God, due to our sins, would fill him with that horror and amazement,\nwhich he expressed: yet we ought carefully to distinguish between this\npart of his sufferings, and the punishment of sin in hell, inasmuch as\nhe was exempted from the sting of conscience, and a constant sense of\nthe everlasting displeasure of God, together with despair of any better\ncondition, or the least relaxation, as a judicious writer observes.[223]\nAnd besides, it is expressly said, in this scripture, Thou wilt not\nleave my soul; which shews, that though he might be destitute of the\ncomfortable sense of God\u2019s presence, which occasioned him to cry out,\n_My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?_ yet he was not destitute of\nthe supporting presence of God, nor separate from his love, which always\nredounded to his Person; though the effects of God\u2019s wrath, which he\nbore, might fill him with the greatest uneasiness, from the afflictive\nview, which he had thereof in his soul. However, though the sense of\nthis text must be thus qualified, if we suppose that it denotes Christ\u2019s\nsufferings in his soul before his death; yet it does not sufficiently\nappear that the apostle speaks of his sufferings antecedent to it;\nbecause it is brought in as an argument, to prove that he should be\nraised from the dead, and accordingly his flesh is said to rest in hope;\ntherefore we shall proceed,\n\n[2.] To consider Christ\u2019s descent into hell, as contained in one of the\narticles of the creed, that is commonly attributed to the apostles,\nwhich is particularly referred to, in the answer under our present\nconsideration, wherein it is put after his death. Here something might\nhave been premised concerning that Creed in general, and the reason of\ninserting this article in it: but this having been insisted on with\ngreat judgment by others,[224] all that I shall add, is, that\nnotwithstanding what we meet with in some fabulous and spurious\nwritings, this Creed was not compiled by the apostles, how consonant\nsoever it be to the doctrines laid down by them: for we have no account\ngiven of it by any ancient writers before the fourth century, therefore\nit is of later date, than either the Nicene or Athanasian Creed; the\nformer of which was composed about the year of our Lord 325, the latter\nnot long after it. In the Nicene Creed, there is no mention made of\nChrist\u2019s descent into hell, though the Athanasian Creed inserts it; but\nthere is no mention therein of his being buried. The words are these: He\ndescended into hell, and the third day he arose from the dead; from\nwhence some conclude, that nothing else is intended but his being\nburied, or continuing in the state of the dead, till his\nresurrection.[225] Some think, indeed, that there was a marginal note in\nsome copies of this Creed, to explain what is meant by his descending\ninto hell, namely, that he was buried; which the compilers of the\napostles Creed afterwards thought to be a part of the Creed itself, and\ntherefore they add, that he died, was buried, and descended into hell.\nBut passing by this critical remark, concerning the reason of the\ninsertion hereof in this article, we shall proceed to consider how this\nis explained, by various writers, who treat on this subject. And,\n\n(1.) The Papists and Lutherans assert that our Saviour descended locally\ninto hell after his death; not to suffer any of the torments that are\nendured there, but to shew himself as a conqueror over those who are\ndetained in it, and triumph over them. As for the Papists, they suppose,\nthat he went also into a place, which they describe[226] as a prison,\nwhere the souls of the old Testament-saints were detained, as being\nincapable of entering into heaven, inasmuch as they had not a sufficient\ndiscovery of Christ and the gospel made to them, while they were here on\nearth; and therefore they were detained in this, which we may call a\nfictitious place, which they represent as being between heaven and hell;\nnot, indeed, according to them, a place of torment, but they suppose it\nwas such, in which they were destitute of the heavenly blessedness; and\nthey add, that immediately after Christ appeared among them, and\nmanifested himself to them, they believed; in which sense they\nunderstand that scripture, where it is said, that _the gospel was\npreached to them that are dead_, 1 Pet. iv. 6. and, upon this, he\ncarried them with him into heaven. This opinion of Christ\u2019s descending\nlocally into hell, is very absurd, and contrary to scripture;\nparticularly,\n\n_1st_, To what he says to the penitent thief upon the cross, _To-day\nthou shalt be with me in paradise_, Luke xxiii. 43. by which, doubtless\nhe means heaven, which is called paradise in other scriptures, 2 Cor.\nxii. 2. compared with 4. and Rev. ii. 7. The method which the Papists\ntake to evade the force of this argument, is, by pretending that our\nSaviour speaks of his being with him in heaven, as he is there in his\ndivine nature; or, since that appears to be so great a strain on the\nsense of the text, that very few will much regard it; they have another\nevasion, which is as little to the purpose, by pretending, that there\nought to be a stop put after the words to day; and so the meaning is,\nthat now at this time, I say unto thee, that thou shalt be with me in\nparadise, or heaven, when I ascend into it, after I have descended into\nhell, and that other place which I must go to, before I come to heaven:\nbut this sense of the text is so evasive, that none, who read the\nscripture impartially, can suppose that it is just; and therefore\nnothing farther need be said to it.\n\n_2dly_, It appears that Christ immediately went into heaven, as to his\nsoul, when he died upon the cross, from his last words, _Father, into\nthine hands I commend my spirit; which having said, he gave up the\nghost_, Luke xxiii. 46. This giving up himself to God, implies a desire\nthat God would receive his spirit; even as Stephen said, with his dying\nbreath, _Lord Jesus, receive my spirit_, Acts vii. 59. Christ, in\neffect, desires that God would receive his spirit; and can we suppose\nthis prayer to be unanswered, or that he was not immediately received\ninto heaven?\n\nWe might farther have shown how little ground they have to conclude that\nChrist went to preach the gospel to those, who, by reason of the\ndarkness of the Old Testament-dispensation, were detained in prison, as\nbeing unfit for the heavenly state: but the falseness of this\nsupposition has been considered elsewhere,[227] and therefore pass it\nover at present. And as for that scripture, which they bring in defence\nhereof, that Christ went and preached to the spirits in prison, 1 Pet.\niii. 19. it is plain from the context, that the apostle means nothing\nelse thereby, but his sending Noah to preach to the old world, who were\ndisobedient, and, for this, were sent into the prison of hell, _after\nthe long-suffering of God had waited on them while the ark was\nbuilding_. How easy a matter is it for those, who regard but the analogy\nof faith, or the context of those scriptures, which they bring in\ndefence of their wild absurdities, to pretend to prove any thing from\nscripture![228]\n\nAs to what they say concerning Christ\u2019s descending into hell, to triumph\nover the devils, and others, who were there plunged into that abyss of\nmisery, this conjecture has no foundation in scripture. We read, indeed\nof his _spoiling principalities and powers, and making a shew of them\nopenly, triumphing over them_; but it was _in his cross_, and not in\nhell, Col. ii. 15. and elsewhere of his _destroying him that had the\npower of death, that is, the devil_, Heb. ii. 14. But it was not by\ngoing in his own Person into that place, where he is detained in chains\nof darkness; it was not by any thing done by him after his death, but,\nas it is expressed, by death, as he purchased that victory, which he\nobtained over him on the cross, which was the seat of his triumph in\nthis respect; and therefore there is no foundation to assert his local\ndescent into hell.\n\n(2.) The most probable opinion concerning Christ\u2019s descent into hell,\nwhich I cannot but acquiesce in, is what is observed in this answer, as\nimplying his continuing in the state of the dead, and under the power of\ndeath till the third day. The word _hell_, indeed, in our English\ntongue, generally, if not always, signifies that place of torment, which\nthey are adjudged to, who are for ever excluded from the divine favour:\nthus it is said, concerning the rich man in the parable, that _in hell\nhe lift up his eyes, being in torments_, Luke xvi. 23. But the Hebrew\nand Greek words,[229] which we often translate _hell_, have not only\nthat, but another sense affixed to them, as they sometimes signify the\n_grave_; so our translators frequently render the word; as when Jacob\nspeaks of _bringing down his gray hairs with sorrow to the grave_, Gen.\nxlii. 38. and elsewhere it is said, _The Lord killeth and maketh alive;\nhe bringeth down to grave, and bringeth up_, 1 Sam. ii. 6. And it is\ntaken for the state of the dead: thus Jacob, when he thought that his\nson Joseph was torn in pieces, without being laid in the grave, says, _I\nwill go down into the grave, unto my son_, Gen. xxxvii. 35. There are\nmany other places in which the Hebrew word is so rendered; and as for\nthe Greek word, that, according to its proper derivation and\nsignification, denotes the state of the dead, or the unseen state: thus\nour Saviour, after death, continued in the state of the dead, his soul\nbeing separate from his body till the third day, when his state of\nhumiliation was finished.\n\nThis leads us to consider Christ\u2019s state of exaltation.\n\nFootnote 216:\n\n _A piece of silver is the same which is elsewhere called a shekel,\n which was valued at about half a crown, English money; so that the\n whole price for which our Saviour was sold into their hands, was no\n more than three pounds fifteen shillings._\n\nFootnote 217:\n\n _Pilate is characterized, by various writers, as a man of inhuman\n cruelty, insatiable avarice, and inflexible obstinacy. An instance of\n his cruelty we have mentioned in Luke_ xiii. _1. in his mingling_ the\n blood of the Galileans with their sacrifices, _that is, as some\n suppose he fell upon them without a fair trial, and murdered them\n while they were engaged in a solemn act of religious worship, offering\n sacrifice at Jerusalem, in one of the public festivals; pretending,\n though without a fair trial, that they were of the same mind, with\n Judas of Galilee, who had persuaded many of the Galileans to refuse to\n give tribute to C\u00e6sar. A learned writer_ (Vid. Grot. in Luke xiii. 1.)\n _supposes, not only that this was the occasion of this inhuman action,\n which is not improbable, (though Josephus makes no mention of it) but\n also that this is one of those things which was reported to the\n emperor, who did not approve of it. And afterwards there were other\n instances of his oppression and mal-administration laid before\n Tiberius, which, had not that emperor\u2019s death prevented, it would have\n occasioned his disgrace; and afterwards he fell under the displeasure\n of his successor, and was not only turned out of his procuratorship,\n but reduced to such miserable circumstances, that he laid violent\n hands on himself_, (Vid. Phil. Jud. de Leg. ad Caj. & Joseph. Antiq.\n Lib. XVIII. cap. 5. & Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Lib. II. cap. 7.)\n _Therefore we may well suppose, that though he had, in other respects\n no regard to the Jews; yet, on this occasion, he feared, lest they\n should report his vile actions to the emperor, and that they would\n represent this to him with a malicious insinuation, that he was his\n enemy, because he spared our Saviour: this occasioned him to deliver\n him up to them, to do what they would with him._\n\nFootnote 218:\n\n _Vid. Sozom. Hist. Eccl. Lib. I. cap. 8_.\n\nFootnote 219:\n\n _It is frequently styled, by the Romans, Servile supplicium_, (Vid.\n Val. Max. Lib. II. de discipl. milit. \u00a7 12.) _as being inflicted, by\n them, on none but slaves; so one_ (Vid. Ter. Andr.) _represents a\n master speaking to his servant_, Quid meritus es? _To which he\n replies, Crucem. & Juv. in Satyr, 6. says_, Pone Crucem servo. _Cicero\n inveighs, with so much earnestness, against this severe and cruel\n punishment, that he signifies how glorious and delightful a thing it\n would be for him to declaim against it, not only at the expence of his\n strength, but of his very life_: Quorum ego de acerbissima morte,\n crudelissimoq; cruciatu dicam, cum eum locum tractare c\u0153pero; & ita\n dicam, ut si me in ea querimonia, quam sum habiturus de istius\n crudelitate, & de civium Rom, indignissima morte, non modo vires,\n verum etiam vita deficiat, id mihi pr\u00e6clarum & jucundum putem. _And\n elsewhere he intimates, that it was universally reckoned the highest\n crime to crucify any one that was free of Rome, in a beautiful climax,\n or gradation of expression_: Facinus est, vinciri civem Romanum;\n scelus verberari: prope parricidium necari: quid dicam in crucem\n tollere? (Vid. Orat. in Verr. Lib. V.) _And elsewhere he says_, Nomen\n ipsum crucis, absit non modo a corpore civium Romanorum, sed etiam a\n cogitatione, oculis, auribus. _And he adds concerning it, together\n with other cruelties that attended it_, Harum enim omnium rerum non\n solum eventus, atque perpessio, sed etiam conditio, expectatio, mentio\n ipsa denique, indigna cive Romano, atque homine libero est. (Vid.\n Orat. pro C. Rabir.) _As for the cruelty of this death, it was so\n great, that the greatest tortures that are expressed by the word\n Cruciatus, are plainly derived from Crux: and some of the Roman\n emperors, who were of a more merciful disposition than others,\n considering the inhumanity of this kind of death, when they exposed\n some persons for their crimes to public shame upon the cross, ordered\n them first to be put to death by the sword._\n\nFootnote 220:\n\n _See Lowth in loc._\n\nFootnote 221:\n\n _Vid. Wits. in Symbol. Exercitat. 18. and Pearson on the Creed,\n Article 5. and Parker de descensu Christi ad inferos._\n\nFootnote 222:\n\n _Vid. Institut. Lib. II. cap. 16. \u00a7 10._\n\nFootnote 223:\n\n _Vid. Pearson on the Creed, Artic. 5._\n\nFootnote 224:\n\n _Vid. History of the apostles Creed._\n\nFootnote 225:\n\n The Creed called the Apostles\u2019 is not offered by the first writers in\n whom it is found, upon its own authority. They attempt to prove it\n from the scriptures, and we can receive it in no other way. The\n article \u201cHe descended into hell\u201d did not originally stand in the\n Eastern, nor in the Roman creed; it was first found in the creed of\n Aquileia, which had nothing of Christ\u2019s burial; and no doubt as \u03b1\u03b4\u03ba\u03c3\n is often put for the grave, this article meant in it his burial. When\n inserted from thence into the two other creeds, which mentioned his\n burial already, it was understood of his human soul. Yet it stands\n incoherently, for his body was crucified, dead, buried, arose, and was\n seen to ascend: but this article, in the midst of those verbs,\n predicates something of another subject, his soul. Yet if taken in the\n sense of \u201c_Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell_,\u201d (Psa. xvi. Acts ii.)\n it is true. But \u05e9\u05d0\u05d5\u05dc and \u03b1\u03b4\u03ba\u03c3 are each taken for the invisible world\n or separate state, of the good, as well as evil, both in the old and\n new Testament, and this was thought by Jews and Gentiles to be under\n the surface. Thus Abraham and Lazarus were supposed there, and Samuel\n to have been called up from thence. Christ asserting his divinity,\n must allege he came from heaven, for that was the place of God. He\n also returned thither, and is to come from thence; yet he has gone to\n prepare a place, and his disciples expected by his promise to be with\n him, and so all other Christians. His descent therefore means that his\n soul, when separated from his body, was immediately with the separate\n spirits, who are happy, and so said to be in paradise. But whether\n above, or below the surface, is unimportant. None but the Divine\n Spirit is ubiquitary, but the transitions of others may be as quick as\n thought. They have means of communication with each other, and can\n receive what answers to our sense of light, without bodily senses, and\n no doubt vastly more satisfactorily, than we do in our most vivid\n dreams. The Divine Nature of Christ was, and is, omnipresent; for he\n declared he was in heaven whilst on earth, and it is not probable that\n his human soul was separated from this after his death any more than\n during his life.\n\nFootnote 226:\n\n _This they call Limbus Patrum._\n\nFootnote 227:\n\n _See Vol. I. page 54, 55, and page 209, ante._\n\nFootnote 228:\n\n 1 Peter iii. 18. describes the sufferings, death, and resurrection of\n Christ, as encouragement for the suffering saints. There are no\n prepositions before \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03c2, and \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 (flesh and spirit:) our\n translators have taken the former as the dative of the _part\n affected_, the latter as the dative of the _cause_; and have expressed\n the former by _in_, the latter by _by_. Some preposition, or\n prepositions must be inserted in the translation. It is said, to\n preserve the antithesis, the same should be repeated, and so it will\n be; \u201cWas quickened in the Spirit,\u201d which will refer to his human soul.\n But his human soul was not dead, and could not be quickened. And it is\n absurd to substitute the adjective _quick_, (as Dr. Horseley has done)\n for this is to make, not translate scripture. Nor could his human soul\n quicken his body; it was the power of God, whether we understand by\n Spirit his divine nature, the person of the Father, or of the Holy\n Spirit. Now as the word Spirit here cannot mean his human soul, this\n passage will not prove that it went to any place, or prison, whatever.\n\n _By which_, (ver. 19.) relates to the Divine Spirit: _he_, that is,\n Christ, _went_ (\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 having gone,) _preached_ (this is also the\n indefinite past tense) _to the spirits in prison_. The omission of the\n substantive verb makes the present tense; and the spirits here spoken\n of were still in prison, at the time of the writing this epistle, and\n therefore whether good or evil, they had not been set at large by\n Christ from their imprisonment. The word _disobedient_ is also the\n indefinite participle. _Went_, _preached_, and _disobedient_, are all\n the same tense; and, coming together, evidently relate to the same\n time. \u03a0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 connect them with, and pin them down to the time of the\n verb _waited_, which is the unfinished action, _was waiting_, the\n tense, which is most definite, and in this case actually connected\n with absolute time, to wit, \u201c_in the days of Noah_.\u201d The _going\n forth_, the _preaching_, and the _disobedience_, were therefore all,\n as well as the _waiting_ of God, in the days of Noah, and not between\n the death, and resurrection of Christ.\n\n The reason that the Apostle fixes on the fearful example of rejecting\n divine instructions in the days of Noah, was probably that Noah had\n been called in scripture a _preacher of righteousness_: the Lord had\n also said of that generation, that his _Spirit should not always\n strive with man_, which implies, that his Spirit did go forth with the\n preaching of that age; and their disobedience was proved by their\n destruction by the deluge; and their death in impenitency was a proof\n of their everlasting punishment.\n\nFootnote 229:\n\n \u05e9\u05d0\u05d5\u05dc _and_ \u0391\u03b4\u03b7\u03c2.\n\n\n\n\n Quest. LI., LII.\n\n\n QUEST. LI. _What was the estate of Christ\u2019s exaltation?_\n\n ANSW. The estate of Christ\u2019s exaltation comprehendeth his\n resurrection, ascension, sitting at the right hand of the Father,\n and his coming again to judge the world.\n\n QUEST. LII. _How was Christ exalted in his resurrection?_\n\n ANSW. Christ was exalted in his resurrection, in that, not having\n seen corruption in death, of which it was not possible for him to be\n held, and having the very same body in which he suffered, with the\n essential properties thereof, but without mortality and other common\n infirmities belonging to this life, really united to his soul, he\n rose again from the dead the third day, by his own power; whereby he\n declared himself to be the Son of God, to have satisfied divine\n justice, to have vanquished death, and him that had the power of it,\n and to be Lord of quick and dead; all which he did as a public\n Person, the Head of his church, for their justification, quickening\n in grace, support against enemies, and to assure them of their\n resurrection from the dead at the last day.\n\nThe former of these answers containing only a general account of what is\nparticularly insisted on in some following answers, we pass it over, and\nproceed to consider Christ as exalted in his resurrection. And\naccordingly we may observe,\n\nI. That he did not see corruption in death. Corruption according to our\ncommon acceptation of the words imports two things,\n\n1. The dissolution of the frame of nature, or the separation of soul and\nbody, in which sense every one that dies sees corruption; for death is\nthe dissolution, or separation of the two constituent parts of man;\nwhich therefore the apostle calls _the dissolution of this earthly\ntabernacle_, 2 Cor. v. 1. Now when our Saviour is said not to see\ncorruption, it is not to be understood in this sense; because he really\ndied.\n\n2. It consists principally in the body\u2019s being putrified, or turned into\ndust. In this sense it is said, _Thou wilt not suffer thine Holy One to\nsee corruption_, Acts ii. 27. which is explained in a following verse,\nin which is said, that _his flesh did not see corruption_, ver. 31. i.\ne. he did not continue long enough in the state of the dead, for his\nbody to be corrupted, which it would have been, without a continued\nmiracle, had it lain many days in the grave.\n\nIf it be objected, that to lie two or three days in the grave is\nsufficient to contract some degree of corruption; therefore Christ\u2019s\nbody could not, in all respects, be free from corruption.\n\nTo this we answer, that there was a peculiar hand of providence, in\nkeeping it from being corrupted, during that short space of time, in\nwhich it continued in the state of the dead, which was an indication of\nthe great regard which God had to him, his sufferings therein being now\nat an end. But there may be another reason hereof assigned, inasmuch as\nthe filth of sin is sometimes illustrated by things putrified and\ncorrupted, to beget in us a detestation thereof; therefore God would not\nsuffer the body of Christ to be corrupted; as his soul had not the least\ntaint of moral corruption in life, it was not expedient that his body\nshould have the least mark or emblem of it in death. And it was also\nnecessary, that his body should not see corruption, by being turned into\ndust, as the bodies of all men will be; otherwise we could not have had\nso evident a proof, that the same body which died, was raised again from\nthe dead, which will be farther insisted on, under a following head,\nwhen we consider the reason why he rose again so soon as the third day.\n\nII. It was not possible for our Saviour to be held any longer under the\npower of death: this is taken from Acts ii. 24. For the understanding\nwhereof, let us consider,\n\n1. That had he continued always under the power of death, it would have\nargued the insufficiency of his satisfaction, so that his obedience in\nlife, and his sufferings in death, could not have attained the end\ndesigned thereby; and consequently the infinite worth and value thereof\nwould, in effect, have been denied. Therefore the justice of God being\nfully satisfied, it could not refuse to release him out of prison, that\nis, to raise him from the dead.\n\n2. It was not possible that he should be held any longer under the power\nof death, than till the third day, because the purpose and promise of\nGod must have its accomplishment. And, indeed, he was given to\nunderstand, before he suffered, that his body should be detained no\nlonger in the grave; as he intimates to his followers, _Destroy this\ntemple, and in three days I will raise it up_, John ii. 19. This event,\ntherefore, was proposed as a sign, and an appeal is made thereunto, for\nthe confirmation of his mission and doctrine; therefore it was\nimpossible that he should be held any longer in the grave.\n\nIII. We are to prove, that Christ actually rose again from the dead. The\ntwo main proofs, necessary to support our faith herein, are, 1. A\nsufficient testimony given hereof by creatures, 2. A farther\nconfirmation of it by miracles, which are a divine testimony. Both these\nwe have; and it may be farther observed, that the great ends of his\ndeath and resurrection are fully obtained, as appears by daily\nexperience; all which afforded us unquestionable matter of conviction.\n\n_First_, As to the former sort of testimony. It was attested by\nsufficient, undeniable evidence; as,\n\n1. By two angels, who were sent from heaven, as the first witnesses\nthereof; they are described as being _in shining garments, who said, Why\nseek ye the living among the dead? he is not here, but is risen_, Luke\nxxiv. 4-6. They are called indeed, two men, because they appeared in\nhuman form; but another evangelist calls them _two angels_, John xx, 12.\n\n2. It was attested, by several men and women, who were his familiar\nfriends and followers before his death, and saw and conversed with him,\nafter his resurrection, and therefore had sufficient proof that it was\nhe who suffered that was raised from the dead. And, lest the testimony\nof his apostles should not be reckoned sufficient, though there were\nenough of them to attest this matter, he was afterwards seen by a great\nnumber, namely, _Above five hundred brethren at once_, 1 Cor. xv. 6. and\nsurely, all these could not be deceived, in a matter of which it was\nnecessary for themselves, as well as others, that they should have the\nfullest conviction.\n\nNow that it was morally impossible, that his disciples, in particular,\nshould be imposed on, will farther appear, if we consider,\n\n(1.) That they were his intimate associates; it was for this reason,\namong others, that providence ordered that he should appear to, and\nconverse mostly with them: had he appeared to others, who never knew him\nbefore, and told them that he was risen from the dead, though they could\nnot question his being alive, whilst they conversed with him; yet they\nmight doubt whether he was the same person who died, and so was raised\nfrom the dead: and it cannot well be conceived that such could receive a\nfull conviction, as to this matter, without a miracle: but, when he\nappeared to those who were intimately acquainted with him, before his\ndeath, the conviction is easy and natural; for,\n\nIf his countenance, or outward appearance, as much resembled what it was\nbefore his death, as ours after a fit of sickness does what it was\nbefore; then his aspect, or external appearance to them, would afford\nsuch matter of conviction, as very few pretend to gainsay; especially,\nconsidering it was but three days since they saw him, before he was\ncrucified. But it may be objected to this, that his countenance was so\naltered, that it was hard to know him by it, insomuch that Mary, one of\nhis intimate acquaintance, when she first saw him, mistook him for the\ngardener, John xx. 14, 15. and it is said, that, _after this he appeared\nin another form unto two of them_, Mark xvi. 12.\n\nAs to the former of these scriptures, Mary might easily mistake him for\nanother person, through surprize, and not looking stedfastly on him, as\nnot expecting to see him. This her mistake, therefore, may easily be\naccounted for, though we suppose his countenance not much to differ from\nwhat it was before his death.\n\nAs to the other scripture, which speaks of his appearing, _in another\nform_, to two of his disciples, as they walked into the country; this is\nmentioned, with some particular enlargement, by the evangelist Luke,\ntogether with the conversation our Saviour had with them; and it is\nobserved, that _their eyes were holden, that they should not know him_,\nLuke xxiv. 16. and that afterwards _their eyes were opened and they knew\nhim_, ver. 31. May we not, from hence, suppose, that there was something\npreternatural, either in the change of Christ\u2019s countenance, to the end\nthat, at first, they should not know him; or else, that there was some\nimpress upon the minds of the disciples, that prevented their knowing\nhim? If the former of these be supposed, as agreeable to St. Mark\u2019s\nwords, relating to his appearing in _another form_; this miracle will\nnot give sufficient occasion for us to conclude that our Saviour\u2019s\ncountenance was so much altered, when, in other instances, he appeared\nto his disciples, that it was impossible that they should know him\nthereby: but, if this should be allowed; or, if it should be objected,\nthat the most intimate friends may mistake the person whom they see, if\nthere be nothing else to judge by, but the likeness of his countenance,\nto what it was before; then let us add,\n\n(2.) That our Saviour not only appeared to his disciples, but conversed\nwith them, and brought to their remembrance what had passed between him\nand them before his death: thus he says, _These are the words that I\nspake unto you while I was yet with you_, &c. Luke xxiv. 44. Now, when a\nperson not only discovers himself to others, but brings to mind private\nconversation that had before passed between them, at particular times\nand places; this leaves no ground to doubt whether it be the same\nperson, or no. Therefore his appearing to, and conversing with his\nintimate, particular friends, and calling to mind former conversation\nheld with them before his death, proves that he was the same Person that\nhad lived before; and consequently they might be as sure that he was\nraised from the dead, as they were that he died.\n\n3. Those persons, who, after his resurrection, were witnesses to the\ntruth hereof to the world, were very worthy of credit; for,\n\n(1.) They were of such a temper, that they would believe nothing\nthemselves, but upon the fullest evidence; and this they had to such an\nextreme, as is uncommon; providence so ordering it, that we might, from\nthence, be more sure that we were not imposed on by their report. They\nwere incredulous, even to a fault; for,\n\n_1st_, Though they had sufficient intimation given them, that our\nSaviour would rise from the dead, at that time that he really did, and\nwere also credibly informed by the women, who had an account hereof from\nthe angel, that he was risen; yet it is said, _Their words seemed to\nthem as idle tales, and they believed them not_, chap. xxiv. 11.\n\n_2dly_, After they had received a farther account of this matter, from\nthose two disciples, who conversed with him, going to Emmaus, and\ntherefore had sufficient ground, from them, to conclude that he was\nrisen from the dead; yet, when our Saviour, at the same time that they\nwere reporting this matter to them, appeared in the midst of them, _they\nwere terrified_, as if they had _seen a spirit_, Luke xxiv. 36, 37. This\nfarther discovers how much they were disinclined to believe any thing,\nwithout greater evidence than what is generally demanded in like cases.\n\n_3dly_, The report given by the rest of the disciples to Thomas,\nconcerning his resurrection, and his having appeared to them, and\nconversed with them, which was a sufficient ground to induce any one to\nbelieve it, was not, in the least regarded by him, who determined, that\nunless _he saw in his hands the print of the nails, and put his finger\ninto the print of the nails, and thrust his hand into his side, he would\nnot believe_; in which he was afterwards indulged by our Saviour for his\nconviction. All these things are plain proofs that the disciples, who\nwere to be witnesses of this matter, were not persons of such a temper,\nas that they might easily be imposed on, and therefore their report is\nmore convincing to us.\n\n(2.) They were men of an unspotted character, unblemished honesty and\nintegrity, which is a very necessary circumstance to be regarded, in\nthose who are evidences to any matters of fact: their conversation was\nsubject to the inspection of their most inveterate enemies, who, if they\ncould have found any thing blame-worthy therein, would, doubtless, have\nalleged it against them, as an expedient to have brought their persons\nand doctrines into disrepute, which would have had a tendency to sap the\nvery foundation of the Christian religion; and the Jews need not have\nhad recourse to persecution, or called in the aid of the civil\nmagistrate to silence them, if they could have produced any instances of\ndishonesty, or want of integrity, in their character. The apostle Peter,\nwho was one of the witnesses to this truth, appeals to the world in the\nbehalf of himself and the rest of the apostles, when he says, _We have\nnot followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the\npower and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye-witnesses of his\nMajesty_, 2 Pet. i. 18. and, indeed, their writings discover not only\ngreat integrity, but holiness, and therefore the same apostle styles\nthem all, _Holy men of God_, ver. 21.\n\n(3.) They could not be supposed to have the least prospect of advantage\nby deceiving the world, as to this matter; but, on the other hand, were\nto look for nothing else but the greatest degree of opposition, both\nfrom the Jews and the Heathen. The former, who had always been such\nenemies to their Lord and Master, would, doubtless, be so to them; and,\nbesides this, they reckoned it their interest to oppose and persecute\nevery one who propagated this doctrine, inasmuch as they apprehended,\nthat, if the world believed it, it would fasten an eternal mark of\ninfamy upon them; and they were also apprehensive, that it would _bring\non them_ the guilt of _his blood_, that is, the deserved punishment\nthereof, Acts v. 28. If any one should object, that they might have some\nview to their own interest, when they first became Christ\u2019s disciples,\nor expect some secular advantage, by being the subjects of his kingdom,\nas apprehending that it was of a temporal nature; this they had not any\nground for from him. Besides, since his crucifixion, all expectations of\nthat kind were at an end; and therefore their reporting that he was\nrisen from the dead, if he had not been so, would have been to invent a\nlie, contrary to their own interest.\n\nMoreover, they would herein not only have imposed on others, but have\nincurred the divine displeasure, and ruined their own souls, the\nhappiness whereof was equally concerned in the truth of their testimony\nwith that of ours; and none can suppose that they ever appeared so\ndesperate, as not to regard what became of them, either in this or\nanother world.\n\nThus we have considered the testimony of those apostles, who saw and\nconversed with Christ after his resurrection, together with their\nrespective character, as witnesses hereof. And to them we have the\naddition of another witness to this truth, namely, the apostle Paul, who\nsaw him in an extraordinary manner, after his ascension into heaven, and\nheard his voice, saying, _Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? I am\nJesus, whom thou persecutest_, chap. xxvi. 14-16. upon this occasion he\nsays, concerning himself, _Last of all he was seen of me also, as of one\nborn out of due time_, 1 Cor. xv. 8. that is, one who had this\nqualification for the apostleship, or his being a witness to Christ\u2019s\nresurrection, after that time, in which others were qualified to bear\ntheir testimony hereunto, that is, after his ascension into heaven. And\nwe may observe, concerning this witness, that he was well known, by all\nthe Jews, to have been one of the most inveterate enemies to\nChristianity in the world; which he frequently afterwards took occasion\nto mention, that so his testimony might be more regarded; and, indeed,\nnothing short of the fullest evidence, as to this matter, could induce\nhim to forego his secular interest, and in common with the rest of the\napostles, to expose himself to the loss of all things, in defence of\nthis truth.\n\nAnd, now we are speaking concerning the witnesses to Christ\u2019s\nresurrection, and the apostle Paul, as attesting this, from his having\nseen him in glorified state, we may take notice of one more evidence\nhereunto, namely, the blessed martyr Stephen, who declared, in the\npresence of his enraged enemies, _Behold, I see the heavens opened, and\nthe Son of man standing on the right hand of God_, Acts vii. 56. He was,\ndoubtless, one of the holiest, and most upright men in his day; and,\nwhen he gave this testimony, it is said, in the foregoing words, _He was\nfull of the Holy Ghost_; and certainly the Holy Ghost, would not suggest\na falsity to him: and this he spake when ready to expire, and, at such a\ntime, men are under no temptation to deceive the world; so that if, at\nany time, they are to be believed, it is then, when they are in the most\nserious frame, and thoughtful about the world into which they are\nimmediately passing. Thus concerning the testimony of Christ\u2019s friends\nand followers to his resurrection.\n\nAnd, to this, we might add the testimony of enemies themselves hereunto;\nthey were forced to own this truth, though it was so much against their\nown interest, and made their crime, in crucifying him appear so black\nand heinous. Thus we may observe, that when Christ was buried, the Jews\ndesired Pilate, from the intimation which they before had received, that\nhe was to rise again after three days, that his sepulchre should be made\nsure till that time, which was done accordingly; a stone rolled to the\nmouth thereof, and sealed, and a watch appointed to guard it; and these\nwere Jews, as Pilate says, _Ye have a watch, go your way, make it as\nsure as you can_, Matt. xxvii. 65. He did not order Christ\u2019s friends and\nfollowers to watch the sepulchre, but his enemies; and it is observed,\nconcerning them, that when the stone was rolled from the door of the\nsepulchre, by the ministry of an angel, _the keepers_, or the watch\nwhich Pilate had set, _did shake and became as dead men_, chap. xxviii.\n4. or were ready to die with fear. This could not throw them into a\nsleep, for fear awakens, rather than stupifies the passions; upon this\nit is said, _Some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the\nchief priests the things that were done; and when they had assembled\ntogether, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the\nsoldiers, saying, Say ye, his disciples came by night, and stole him\naway, while we slept_; and, since this would render them liable to the\ngovernor\u2019s resentment, and some degree of punishment for their not\nattending their respective post, with that watchfulness that was\nnecessary, they add, _We will persuade him and secure you_; upon which\nit is said, _They took the money, and did as they were taught; and this\nsaying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day_. This is the\nmost stupid and absurd method that could be taken, to discountenance the\ndoctrine of Christ\u2019s resurrection; and, indeed it contains a proof\nthereof: the soldiers, at first, reported matter of fact; but the\nevasion thereof confutes itself. Must we not suppose, that there were a\nconsiderable number that watched the sepulchre? Doubtless, they would\ntake care to have several there present, lest those who might come to\nsteal him away should be too strong for them: and, if there were several\nof them present, could they be all asleep at the same time? and could\nthe tomb be opened, which they had made stronger than ordinary, and the\nstone rolled from it, and yet none of them be awakened out of their\nsleep? Besides, if they were asleep, their evidence, that Christ was, at\nthe same time, stolen away by his disciples, is too ridiculous to be\nregarded by any, who consider what sort of evidence deserves to be\ncredited; for how could they know what was done when they were asleep?\nThus concerning the testimony given to Christ\u2019s resurrection, both by\nangels and men. We proceed to consider,\n\n_Secondly_, How it was confirmed by miracles, which are no other than a\ndivine testimony. The former sort of evidence, indeed, is sufficient to\nconvince any one, who does not give way to the greatest degree of\nscepticism: but yet we have farther proof of it; for, as the apostle\nsays, _If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater_,\n1 John v. 19. Now God himself has been pleased to set his seal to this\ntruth, or to confirm it by the extraordinary testimony of miracles,\nwhich were wrought by the apostles; which was, in some respect,\nnecessary, that the faith of those, who were to be convinced thereby,\nmight be properly divine, and therefore founded on greater evidence than\nthat of human testimony, how undeniable soever it were: thus it is said,\nthat _with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of\nthe Lord Jesus_, Acts iv. 33. and the Holy Ghost, in particular, by\nwhose immediate efficiency these miracles were wrought, is said to be a\nwitness hereunto: thus the apostles say, _We are his witnesses of these\nthings, and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that\nobey him_, chap. v. 32. the meaning of which is, we are speaking and\nacting by the immediate power of the Holy Ghost, confirming to you this\ngreat truth. And, indeed, those miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost were\nan extraordinary means for the conviction of the world concerning this\ntruth; which our Saviour gave his followers ground to expect, at this\ntime, before his death, when he spake concerning the Spirit, which was\nnot before given, John vii. 36. that is, not in so great a degree, so as\nto enable them to speak with divers tongues, and work various sorts of\nmiracles, beyond what they had done before; accordingly it is said, _The\nHoly Ghost was not yet_, or before this, _given, because that Jesus was\nnot glorified_. This Christ also promised them, immediately before his\nascension into heaven, that _these signs shall follow them that believe;\nin my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new\ntongues, they shall take up serpents, and, if they drink any deadly\nthing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands, and they shall\nrecover_, Mark xvi. 17, 18. These miracles are called signs, as ordained\nto signify or give a proof of Christ\u2019s resurrection; and they are said\nto be wrought by them, who had the faith of miracles, believed it\nthemselves, and hereby induced others to believe it; and also they\nwrought them in his name, with a design to set forth his glory, which\ncould not have been evinced hereby, had he not been risen from the dead.\n\nAnd to this we may add, that all the gifts and graces of the Spirit,\nwhich believers are made partakers of, are convincing evidences of this\ndoctrine. But this will be considered under a following head, when we\nspeak to the latter part of this answer, respecting the fruits and\nconsequences of Christ\u2019s resurrection, which the church, in all the\nages, thereof, experiences, whereby the work of grace is begun, carried\non, and perfected in them; which leads us to consider,\n\nIV. The properties of the body of Christ, as thus raised from the dead,\nas it is said, in this answer, that the same body was raised again, with\nall the essential properties thereof, but without mortality, and other\ncommon infirmities belonging to this life.\n\n1. It was the same body which suffered that was raised from the dead,\notherwise it could not be called a resurrection: thus the apostle Paul,\nspeaking concerning the general resurrection at the last day, compares\nit to the springing up of seed, 1 Cor. xv. 37, 38. that is sown in the\nground, which, though it be very much altered, as to its shape, and many\naccidental properties, yet it is the same for substance that was sown;\naccordingly, every seed hath its own body; the matter is the same,\nthough the form be different.\n\n2. When it is said, that the body of Christ had the same essential\nproperties which it had before his death, we are to understand hereby,\nthat it was material, and endowed with the same senses that it had\nbefore, which were exercised in the same manner, though it may be, in a\ngreater degree.\n\n3. It is farther observed, that it had not the same accidental\nproperties which belonged to it before; for it was without mortality,\nand other infirmities of this life; thus the apostle speaks, concerning\nthe resurrection of all believers to this purpose, _It is sown in\ncorruption, it is raised in incorruption; it is sown in dishonour, it is\nraised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is\nsown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body_, ver. 42-44. and it\nis said in particular, concerning our Saviour, that, _being raised from\nthe dead, he dieth no more_, Rom. vi. 9. that is, he was raised\nimmortal. And as believers, after their resurrection from the dead,\nshall be delivered from the common infirmities of life, such as hunger,\nthirst, pain, sickness, and the like; much more may we conclude that our\nSaviour was so: but how far his human nature was changed as to all the\nproperties thereof, it is not for us to pretend to determine, nor ought\nwe to be too inquisitive about it; nevertheless, we may conclude, that\nthough it was raised incorruptible and immortal, and exempted from the\ncommon infirmities of this life; yet it was not, while here on earth,\nclothed with that lustre and glory which was put upon it, when he\nascended into heaven; the reason of which might probably be this, that\nhe might converse with men, or that they might be able to bear his\npresence, which they could not have done, had his body been so glorious,\nas it is now at present, since his ascension into heaven.\n\nV. It is farther observed, that Christ was raised from the dead on the\nthird day, that is, he continued in the state of the dead, from the\nevening of the sixth day, to the morning of the first, which is the\nChristian Sabbath: thus the day on which Christ died is said to be the\n_preparation, and the Sabbath drew on_, Luke xxiii. 54. which another\nEvangelist explains, and says, _It was the preparation, that is, the day\nbefore the Sabbath_, Mark xv. 42. The reason why the day before the\nSabbath is so called, is, because it was the day wherein they prepared\nevery thing that was necessary for the solemnity of the day following,\nand gave a dispatch to their worldly affairs, that they might not be\nembarrassed therewith, and that by fore-thought and meditation on the\nwork of that day, they might be better prepared. This was on the sixth\nday of the week, and Christ died in the evening, not long before\nsun-set; and it is also said, that he rose again from the dead when the\nseventh day was past, very early in the morning on the first day of the\nweek, chap. xvi. 1, 2. so that our Saviour continued in the state of the\ndead a part of the sixth, the whole seventh, and a part of the first day\nof the week; upon which account he is said to rise again on the third\nday, 1 Cor. xv. 4. that is, the third day, inclusive of the day of his\ndeath, and that of his resurrection. The learned bishop Pearson, in his\nmarginal notes on the fifth article of the Creed, illustrates it by a\ntertian, or third-day ague, which is so called, though there be but one\nday\u2019s intermission between the paroxisms thereof, and so the first and\nthird day are both included in the computation. This is farther\nillustrated by him and others, who treat on this subject, viz. that the\nscripture often speaks of a number of days, inclusive of the first and\nlast; as when it is said, _When eight days were accomplished, our\nSaviour was circumcised_, Luke xii. 21. including the days of his birth\nand circumcision, between which six days intervened.[230] Thus our\nSaviour continued three days in the state of the dead, inclusive of the\nfirst and last; or, he rose again, the third day, according to the\nscriptures.\n\nWe shall now consider what reasons may be assigned why providence\nordered that Christ should continue three days, and no longer, in the\nstate of the dead.\n\n1. It seems agreeable to the wisdom of God that there should be some\nspace of time between his death and resurrection, that so there might be\na sufficient evidence that he was really dead, since much depends on our\nbelief thereof. He might have breathed forth his soul into the hands of\nGod one moment, and received it again, as raised from the dead, the\nnext: but God, in wisdom, ordered it otherwise; for, had he expired, and\nrose from the dead, in so short a time, it might have been questioned\nwhether he died or no; whereas his lying in the grave till the third\nday, puts this matter beyond all dispute.\n\n2. It was agreeable to the goodness and care of providence that our\nSaviour should not continue too long in the state of the dead: had he\ncontinued several years in the grave, there could not have been an\nappeal to his resurrection, during all that space of time, to confirm\nthe faith of his people concerning his mission. God would not keep his\npeople too long in suspense, whether it was he that was to redeem\nIsrael; nor would he too long delay the pouring forth of his Spirit, or\nthe preaching of the gospel, which were designed to be deferred till\nChrist\u2019s rising from the dead; and it seems most convenient that he\nshould soon rise from the dead, that is, on the third day, that the\nworld might have a convincing proof of his resurrection, while his death\nwas fresh in their memories, and the subject-matter of the discourse of\nall the world. And they, having been told of this before-hand, were, or\nought to have been in expectation of this wonderful and glorious event;\nand consequently it would be an expedient for their greater conviction.\n\n_Object._ To what has been said concerning Christ\u2019s arising again on the\nthird day, so as that he lay but one whole day in the grave, and a part\nof two days, it is objected, that he is said, in Matt. xii. 40. to _be\nthree days and three nights in the heart of the earth_, which includes a\nlonger time than what is before mentioned; therefore he was crucified on\nthe fifth day of the week, not on the sixth; and it is also contrary to\nwhat has been said concerning his being crucified on the preparation\nbefore the Sabbath.\n\n_Answ._ In answer to this objection, let it be considered,\n\n1. That it cannot be denied, according to the scripture-account of time,\nthat the measure of a day contains the space of time, from one evening\nto the next, which is twenty-four hours. This we call a natural day, the\nnight being the first part thereof, and not the morning according to our\ncomputation, as we reckon a day to contain the space of time from one\nmorning to the next. The reason why the Jews thus begin their day, is,\nbecause it is said, _The evening and the morning were the first day_,\nGen. i. 5. and the Sabbath day was reckoned to continue the space of\ntime, from the evening of the sixth day, to the evening of the seventh,\n_viz._ from sun-set to sun-set; as it is said, _From even unto even\nshall ye celebrate your sabbath_, Lev. xxiii. 32. This farther appears,\nfrom what is said concerning our Saviour\u2019s _going into Capernaum_, and,\n_on the Sabbath day, entering into the synagogue, and teaching_; whereas\nit is said, in a following verse, _When the Sabbath was over, they\nbrought unto him all that were diseased and possessed with devils; and\nthe city was gathered together at the door, and he healed many that were\nsick of divers diseases_, &c. Mark i. 21. compared with ver. 32-34. from\nwhence it appears, that the Sabbath was over at sun-set that day; for\nthe Jews, thinking it unlawful to heal on the Sabbath day, as they\nexpressly say elsewhere, would not bring those who had diseases to be\nhealed till the Sabbath was past.\n\n2. When a whole natural day, consisting of twenty-four hours, is spoken\nof in scripture, it is generally called a day and a night, or an evening\nand a morning. The Jews have no compound word to express this by, as the\nGreeks[231] have: thus it is said, _Unto two thousand and three hundred\ndays, then shall the sanctuary be cleansed_, Dan. viii. 14. The word\nwhich we render _days_, in the Hebrew, signifies, as our marginal\nreference observes, _evening morning_, or so many spaces of time, each\nof which consists of evening and morning; and elsewhere it is said, that\nMoses was upon the mount _forty days and forty nights_, Exod. xxiv. 28.\nthat is, forty of those spaces of time, which we call days, each of\nwhich make a day and a night; so that a day and a night, according to\nthe Hebrew way of speaking, imports no more than a day; therefore, when\nour Saviour is said to be three days and three nights in the heart of\nthe earth, it is an hebraism, which signifies no more than three days,\nor three of those spaces of time, each of which being compleated,\nconsists of a day and a night.\n\n3. It is a very common thing, in scripture, for a part of a day to be\nput for a day, by a _synecdoche_ of the part for the whole; therefore a\npart of that space of time, which, when completed, contains day and\nnight, or the space of twenty-four hours, is called; therefore that\nwhich is done on the third day, before it is completely ended, is said\nto take up three days in doing: thus Esther says, _Fast ye for me, and\nneither eat nor drink three days, night or day; I also and my maidens\nwill fast likewise, and so will I go unto the king_, Esth. iv. 16.\nwhereas it is said after this, that _on the third day Esther put on her\nroyal apparel, and stood in the court of the king\u2019s house_, chap. v. 1.\ntherefore she could not be said to fast three whole days, but a part\nthereof; for, before the third day was ended, she went to the king.\nTherefore a part of three days, or that which is said to be done after\nthree days, or three days and three nights, which is all one, that may\nbe said to be done on the third day, though not completely ended.\nTherefore our Saviour may be said to be three days and three nights in\nthe heart of the earth, that is, a part of those spaces of time, which,\nif completed, would have contained three days and three nights.\n\nVI. Christ raised himself from the dead by his own power. Here let it be\nconsidered,\n\n1. That no power but what is divine, can raise the dead, since it is a\nbringing back the dissolved frame of nature into the same, or a better\nstate than that in which it was before its dissolution, and a remanding\nthe soul, which was in the hand of God that it may be again united to\nits body, which none can do, but God himself. Accordingly the apostle\nmentions it as a branch of the divine glory, and God is represented, as\nhe _who quickeneth all things_, 1 Tim. iv. 13. therefore the body of\nChrist was raised by divine power: thus the apostle says, _This Jesus\nhath God raised up_, Acts ii. 32. and, when he mentions it elsewhere, he\nmakes use of a phrase that is uncommonly emphatical; he wants words to\nexpress it, when he speaks of _the exceeding greatness of his power\nwhich he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead_.[232]\n\n2. Since the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are God, as has been observed\nunder a foregoing answer,[233] it follows, that this infinite power\nbelongs equally and alike to them all, and therefore all these divine\nPersons may be said to have raised Christ\u2019s body from the dead. That the\nFather raised him, no one denies that speaks of the resurrection; and\nthe apostle expressly says, _that he was raised up from the dead by the\nglory of the Father_, Rom. vi. 4. And it is farther said, that he raised\nhimself from the dead: thus he tells the Jews, speaking of the temple of\nhis body, destroy this temple, _and in three days I will raise it up_,\nJohn ii. 19. And that the Holy Ghost raised him, seems to be implied in\nthat expression, in which it is said, _He was declared to be the Son of\nGod with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection\nfrom the dead_, Rom. i. 4. that is, the Spirit, by this act of divine\npower, declared him to have been the Son of God, and to have finished\nthe work he came about; and elsewhere he is said to _be quickened by the\nSpirit_, 1 Pet. iii. 18.\n\n3. Christ, by raising himself by his own power, declared that he was the\nSon of God, that is, not only a divine Person, which his Sonship always\nimplies, but his mission and authority to act as Mediator; and also that\nhe had accomplished the work that he came into the world about.\n\nAs to what our Saviour says, concerning his raising himself by his own\npower; the Socinians apprehending this to be an argument tending to\noverthrow the scheme they lay down, who deny his divinity, are forced to\nmake use of a very sorry evasion, when they pretend to give the sense of\nthat scripture before mentioned, _Destroy this temple, and after three\ndays I will raise it up_. They suppose, that the meaning is only this,\nthat the Father put life into his dead body, and united it to the soul,\nand, after that, he lifted himself up out of the grave, which is\ncertainly a very jejune and empty sense of the words: Is it so great a\nmatter for a Person, who was quickened by divine power, to lift up\nhimself from the grave, in which he lay? In this sense, any one may be\nsaid to raise himself up, as well as Christ, or any one might raise the\ndead after this, by taking him by the hand, and lifting him up from the\nground. This shews how much men are sometimes put to it to support a\ncause that is destitute of solid arguments for its defence. According to\nthis method of reasoning, the whole world may be said to raise\nthemselves at the last day, when God has put life into their dead\nbodies: but certainly more than this is implied in Christ\u2019s raising\nhimself up, inasmuch as it is opposed to his body\u2019s being destroyed, or\nthe frame of nature\u2019s being dissolved in death; therefore he certainly\nintends that he would exert divine power, in raising himself from the\ndead, and hereby declare himself to be a divine Person, or the Son of\nGod.\n\nVII. We are next to consider the effects of Christ\u2019s resurrection,\neither as they respect himself or his people.\n\n1. As to what concerns himself. This was a demonstrative evidence that\nhe had fully satisfied the justice of God, or paid the whole price of\nredemption, which he had undertaken to do; for hereby he was released\nout of the prison of the grave, not only by the power, but the justice\nof God, and received a full discharge; and accordingly was, in this\nrespect, justified, and a full proof given that the work of redemption\nwas brought to perfection.\n\nIt is also observed, that hereby he conquered death, and _destroyed him,\nthat had the power of it_, to wit, _the devil_, Heb. ii. 14. and so\nprocured to himself a right to be acknowledged as _the Lord both of the\ndead and the living_, Rom. xiv. 9. This is, in some respects, different\nfrom that universal dominion which he had over all things, as God, which\nwas the result of his being the Creator of all things and was not\npurchased or conferred upon him, as the consequence of his performing\nthe work which he came into the world about: I say, this dominion, which\nwe are considering, is what belongs to him as Mediator; and it includes\nin it a peculiar right which he has, as Mediator, to confer on his\npeople those blessings which accompany salvation; and his right to give\nlaws to his church, defend them from their spiritual enemies, and bestow\nall the blessings on them, which were promised to them in the covenant\nof grace, and also in his ordering all the affairs of providence to be\nsubservient thereunto. Had he not designed to redeem any of the race of\nmankind, he would have had a dominion over the world, as God, the Judge\nof all; a right to condemn and banish his enemies from his presence: but\nhe could not be said to exercise dominion in such a way, as it is\ndisplayed, with respect to the heirs of salvation; for that would have\nbeen inconsistent with his divine perfections. Had he not died, and rose\nagain, he would, indeed, have had a right to have done what he would\nwith his creatures; but as he could not, without this have redeemed any,\nso he could not confer, upon a peculiar people, that possession, which\nhe is said hereby to have purchased.\n\n2. The effects of Christ\u2019s resurrection, which respect his people,\nconsist more especially in four things.\n\n(1.) Their justification is owing hereunto. And we are said sometimes to\nbe justified by his death, or _by his blood_, Rom. v. 9. so elsewhere we\nare said to be justified, both by his death and resurrection, in\ndifferent respects, _Who is he that condemneth? it is Christ that died,\nyea, rather that is risen again_, chap. viii. 34. by which some\nunderstand, that Christ, by his death paid the debt, which we had\ncontracted, to the justice of God; and, by his resurrection, he received\na discharge, or acquittance, in their behalf, for whom he died, and rose\nagain; so that when he was discharged, his people might be said to be\ndischarged in him, as their public Head and Representative. This is well\nexpressed in our large English Annotations,[234] _viz._ that \u201cour\njustification, which was begun in his death, was perfected in his\nresurrection. Christ did meritoriously work our justification and\nsalvation, by his death and passion; but the efficacy and perfection\nthereof, with respect to us, dependeth on his resurrection. By his\ndeath, he paid our debt; in his resurrection, he received our\nacquittance, Isa. liii. 8. _Being taken from prison, and from judgment_.\nWhen he was discharged, we, in him, and together with him, received our\ndischarge from the guilt and punishment of all our sins;\u201d which is very\nagreeable to what is said in this answer, that he did all this as a\npublic Person, the Head of his church. Nevertheless, there is another\nnotion of our justification, which consists in our apprehending,\nreceiving, or applying his righteousness by faith, which, as will be\nobserved in its proper place,[235] cannot, from the nature of the thing,\nbe said to be before we believe.\n\n(2.) Another effect of Christ\u2019s resurrection, is our quickening in\ngrace; as it is said, _When we were dead in sins, he hath quickened us\ntogether with Christ_, Eph. ii. 5. This implies either that his death,\nbeing the procuring cause of all inherent grace begun in regeneration,\nand carried on in sanctification; his was the first step taken in order\nto his applying what he had purchased; and that afterwards we are\nraised, as the consequence thereof, from the death of sin, to a\nspiritual life of holiness; or else it denotes that communion which\nbelievers have with Christ in his resurrection, as well as his death, as\nhe is the Head and they the members; which is agreeable to that peculiar\nmode of speaking, often used by the apostle Paul, who, in several places\nof his epistles, speaks of believers, as crucified, dead, and buried,\nrisen, and ascended into heaven, and sitting at God\u2019s right hand, in\nheavenly places, in, or with Christ.[236]\n\n(3.) This is also a means for our support against our enemies, whose\nutmost rage can extend itself no farther than the grave. They, for whom\nChrist died, and rose again, shall obtain a glorious resurrection and\neternal life with him; and therefore he advises his people not _to be\nafraid of them that kill the body, and, after that have no more power\nthat they can do_, Luke xii. 4. which will farther appear, if we\nconsider another effect of Christ\u2019s resurrection, _viz._\n\n(4.) That they are hereby assured of their resurrection from the dead at\nthe last day. Christ\u2019s resurrection is, as it were, the exemplar and\npledge of their\u2019s; as hereby he conquered death in his own Person, so he\ngives them ground to conclude, that this _last enemy_, which stands in\nthe way of their complete blessedness, _shall be destroyed_, 1 Cor. xv.\n26. accordingly it is said, that he is _risen from the dead, and become\nthe first fruits of them that slept_, ver. 20. But this will be farther\nconsidered, under a following answer.[237]\n\nFootnote 230:\n\n _This observation is of use for the explaining the sense of several\n scriptures, which contain a seeming contradiction between them: thus,\n in Luke_ ix. _28. it is said_, About eight days after these sayings,\n Jesus took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to\n pray; _whereas Mark says, in chap._ ix. _2. that this was done_ after\n six days, _Luke speaks of the eight days, inclusive of the first and\n last. Mark speaks of eight days, exclusive of them both, which is but\n six days_.\n\nFootnote 231:\n\n _This they call_ \u03bd\u03c5\u03c7\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 232:\n\n _Eph._ i. _19, 20._ \u03c5\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5, _power that\n is great, even to an hyperbole._\n\nFootnote 233:\n\n _See Quest. IX, XI._\n\nFootnote 234:\n\n _See the notes on Rom._ iv. _25._\n\nFootnote 235:\n\n _See Quest. LXX, LXXII._\n\nFootnote 236:\n\n _See Page 182, ante._\n\nFootnote 237:\n\n _See Quest. LXXXVII._\n\n\n\n\n Quest. LIII., LIV.\n\n\n QUEST. LIII. _How was Christ exalted in his ascension?_\n\n ANSW. Christ was exalted in his ascension, in that having, after his\n resurrection, often appeared unto, and conversed with his apostles,\n speaking to them of those things pertaining to the kingdom of God,\n and giving them commission to preach the gospel to all nations;\n forty days after his resurrection, he, in our nature, and as our\n Head, triumphing over enemies, visibly went up into the highest\n heavens, there to receive gifts for men, to raise up our affections\n thither, and to prepare a place for us, where himself is, and shall\n continue, till his second coming at the end of the world.\n\n QUEST. LIV. _How is Christ exalted in his sitting at the right hand\n of God?_\n\n ANSW. Christ is exalted in his sitting at the right hand of God, in\n that, as God-man, he is advanced to the highest favour with God the\n Father, with all fulness of joy, glory, and power over all things in\n heaven and earth, and doth gather and defend his church, and subdue\n their enemies, furnish his ministers and people with gifts and\n graces, and maketh intercession for them.\n\nIn the former of these answers, we have an account of Christ\u2019s ascension\ninto heaven; in the latter, of his sitting at the right hand of God,\nwhich contains a circumstance of glory, that was immediately consequent\nhereupon. And accordingly we are led,\n\n_First_, To consider Christ\u2019s ascension into heaven. Here we may\nobserve,\n\n1. The distance of time between his resurrection and ascension, and what\nhe did during that interval. It is expressly said, that _he shewed\nhimself alive after his passion, by many infallible proofs, being seen\nof them_, viz. the apostles, _forty days, and speaking of the things\npertaining to the kingdom of God_, Acts i. 3. Some of the evangelists\nare more particular on this subject than others: but if we compare them\ntogether, we may observe,\n\n1. That our Saviour, during this interval, did not converse freely and\nfamiliarly with the world, as he had done before his death, during the\nexercise of his public ministry; and, indeed, we cannot learn, from any\naccount given by the evangelists of this matter, that he appeared, so as\nto make himself known, to any but his friends and followers. He might,\nit is true, have appeared to the Jews, and thereby confuted that lie,\nwhich they so studiously propagated, that his disciples came by night\nand stole him away, and consequently that he was not risen from the\ndead: but he thought, as he might well do, that he had given them\nsufficient proof, before his death, that he was the Messiah; and, since\nhe designed that his resurrection should be undeniably attested, by\nthose who were appointed to be the witnesses thereof, it was needless\nfor him to give any farther proof of it. And, besides, his enemies being\nwilfully blind, obstinate, and prejudiced against him, he denied them\nany farther means of conviction, as a punishment of their unbelief;\ntherefore he would not appear to them after his resurrection. And,\nindeed, had he done it, it is probable, considering the malicious\nobstinacy and rage which appeared in their temper, that they would have\npersecuted him again, which it was not convenient that he should submit\nto, his state of humiliation being at an end.\n\n2. He did not continue all the forty days with his apostles; nor have we\nground to conclude that he abode with them in their houses, as he did\nbefore his death, nor did he eat and drink with them, excepting in two\nor three particular instances, mentioned by the evangelist, Luke xxiv.\n41-43. John xxi. 13. the design of which was to prove, that, after his\nresurrection, he had as true an human body, with all the essential\nproperties thereof, as he had before his death; and therefore was not,\nas they supposed him to be, when first they saw him, a spectrum.\n\nAll the account we have of his appearing to his friends and followers,\nis, that it was only occasionally, at such times as they did not expect\nto see him. At one time, he appeared to the two disciples going to\nEmmaus, and made himself known to them, when they came to their\njourney\u2019s end, and then withdrew himself in an instant; afterwards, we\nread of his appearing to the apostles, when they were engaged in social\nworship, on the day of his resurrection; and also, that he appeared to\nthem again on the first day of the following week, John xx. 19. compared\nwith ver. 26. and another time at the sea of Tiberias, chap. xxi. 1. and\nit is expressly said, after this, that _this was now the third time that\nJesus shewed himself to his disciples, after that he was risen from the\ndead_, ver. 14. And, besides this, we read elsewhere of his being _seen\nof above five hundred brethren at once_, 1 Cor. xv. 6. which was\nprobably in Galilee, where his followers generally lived, which was the\ncountry in which he mostly exercised his public ministry before his\ndeath. This seems to have been appointed as a place of general\nrendezvous, if we may so express it, as he says, _After I am risen, I\nwill go before you into Galilee_, Mark xiv. 28. and the angel gives the\nsame intimation, _Go your way, tell his disciples that he goeth before\nyou into Galilee; there shall ye see him, as he said unto you_, chap.\nxvi. 7. Now this intimation being, as is more than probable, transmitted\nto his followers, five hundred of them waited for him there, and\naccordingly he appeared to them. All these appearances were only\noccasional; he principally designing thereby to convince them of the\ntruth of his resurrection, and to give his apostles, in particular,\ninstruction concerning some things, which they were unapprised of\nbefore. Thus concerning the time which Christ continued here on earth,\nin which he sometimes appeared to his disciples.\n\nWe now proceed to consider what he imparted to them, during his stay\nwith, or at those particular times when he appeared to them. Here we\ncannot certainly determine any thing farther than the account we have\nthereof in scripture, in which, as was before observed, it is said, that\n_he spake of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God_. By the\n_kingdom of God_, I humbly conceive, is meant either that glorious state\nand place to which he was to ascend, where they should, at last, be with\nhim, which was a very useful and entertaining subject, and they could\nnot but be happy in hearing those things from him; or else, we are\nhereby to understand the gospel-state, which, in the New Testament, is\noften called _the kingdom of God_, or _the kingdom of heaven_. And\naccordingly, as he designed they should be his ministers, whom he would\nemploy in preaching the gospel, and thereby promoting the affairs of his\nkingdom; it was necessary that they should receive instructions\nconcerning this matter, without which they could do nothing for the\npromoting his interest in the world; or, at least, they must have a\nparticular direction from the Holy Spirit relating thereunto, or else,\nthey would have had no warrant to give instructions to the church\nconcerning this new dispensation. We have no ground to doubt but that\nthey had the Spirit\u2019s direction in every thing that they laid down for\nthe church, as a rule of faith, or practice, afterwards: this they seem\nnot to have had, while our Saviour was with them; however, it is more\nthan probable it was a part of what he discoursed with them about, as he\nordered them to teach those, to whom they were sent, to _observe all\nthings whatsoever he had commanded them_, Matt. xxviii. 20.\n\n(1.) We have sufficient ground to conclude, that he gave them direction\nconcerning the observation of the first day of the week, as the\nChristian Sabbath. He had told them, before his death, that he was _Lord\nof the Sabbath_, Mark ii. 28. and now we may suppose that he more\neminently discovered himself to be so, by changing the day from the\nseventh to the first day of the week. That they had this intimation from\nhim, concerning the Christian Sabbath, seems probable, because it was\nobserved by them, in the interval between his resurrection and\nascension; and, we read, more than once, of his giving countenance to\ntheir observance of it, by his presence with them; whereas, at this\ntime, the Holy Ghost was not poured forth upon them; therefore their\npractice herein seems to be founded on some intimation given them by our\nSaviour, during his continuance with them forty days; though perhaps\nthis might be confirmed to them afterwards, by extraordinary revelation\nfrom the Holy Ghost.\n\n(2.) It was in this interval that our Saviour gave them a commission to\npreach the gospel to all nations, and instituted the ordinance of\nbaptism, Matt. xxviii. 19. which differs very much from the commission\nhe had before given to his twelve disciples, when he ordered them _not\nto go in the way of the Gentiles, nor to enter into any city of the\nSamaritans, but rather to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel_,\nchap. x. 5, 6. whereas now none are excluded, but their commission must\nbe exercised throughout the whole world, wherever they came; and,\ntogether with this, he promised _to be with them_, so as to assist and\nsucceed them in their ministry, _to the end of the world_. Moreover, he\nenjoined them _to tarry in the city of Jerusalem, until they were endued\nwith power from on high, waiting there for the promise of the Father_,\nor for their being baptized by the Holy Ghost, which privilege they\nshould soon after receive, Luke xxiv. 49. compared with Acts i. 4, 5.\nThis was a very necessary advice which our Saviour gave them; for,\nthough they had a commission to preach the gospel, they wanted those\nqualifications for it, which they were to receive from the Holy Ghost.\nThey were also to tarry at Jerusalem, after they had received\nextraordinary gifts from the Holy Ghost till they had an intimation\ngiven, in what parts of the world they should begin the exercise of\ntheir public ministry.\n\n(3.) Though it be not particularly mentioned in the evangelical history,\nyet it is not improbable, that our Saviour spake to his disciples\nconcerning the nature of the gospel-church, and its government, and how\nthey were to exercise their ministry therein; what doctrines they should\npreach, and what success should attend them; and also what they should\nsuffer for his sake. Why may we not suppose that he spake of these\nthings to all his apostles, when he condescended to tell Peter, _by what\ndeath he should glorify God?_ John xxi. 19. And their knowledge of many\nof these things was necessary for the right discharge of their ministry,\nwhich they were to begin at Jerusalem, where the first church was to be\nplanted; and it can hardly be supposed that he would only give them a\ncommission to preach the gospel, without some instructions relating\nthereunto: but, since this is only a probable argument, let me farther\nadd, that it is certain they afterwards had particular direction from\nthe Holy Ghost, relating hereunto, who was given, after Christ\u2019s\nascension into heaven, to lead them into all truth, or to impart, by\nthem, to the gospel-church, an infallible and standing rule of faith and\npractice.\n\nII. After our Saviour had continued forty days on earth from his\nresurrection, and, in that time, conversed with his apostles of the\nthings pertaining to the kingdom of God; it is observed, that he\nascended into heaven, or, as it is here expressed, visibly went up into\nthe highest heavens. There are two phrases, in scripture, whereby this\nis set forth: thus it is said, _He was taken up_, and _he went up_, Acts\ni. 9, 10. which variation of expression is used by the Holy Ghost, as\nsome think, to denote two different respects, or circumstances,\nattending his ascension. _His going up_, signifies, that he ascended\ninto heaven by his own power, pursuant to that right which he had to\nthat glory; as he says elsewhere, _Ought not Christ to suffer, and to\nenter into his glory?_ Luke xxiv. 26. And when it is said, he was _taken\nup_ into heaven, that signifies the Father\u2019s act in exalting him. As he\nsent him into the world, so he took him out of it, into a better, when\nhe had finished his work upon earth. This variety of expression we find\nused in several other scriptures: thus it is said, that _he ascended up\non high_, Eph. iv. 8. _entered into heaven_, Heb. ix. 24. and so put in\nhis claim to the heavenly glory; and, on the other hand, it is said,\nthat _he was received up into heaven_, Mark xvi. 19. and consequently\nhis claim to it admitted of, and accordingly he was _exalted_ to this\nhonour _by God\u2019s right hand_, Acts ii. 33. as what was due to him, as\nthe consequence of his sufferings.\n\nBut, that we may more particularly consider what it was for Christ to\nascend into heaven,\n\n1. We are not to understand hereby that his divine nature was translated\nfrom earth to heaven, or changed the place of its residence; for that is\ncontrary to the omnipresence thereof. Whenever a change of place is\nascribed to it, it respects not his essential, but his manifestative\npresence. Though it was united to the human nature, yet it was not\nconfined to it, or limited by it; and though it displayed its glory\ntherein, in one way, whilst he was here on earth, and in another, when\nhe ascended into heaven; yet, considered as to its essential glory, it\nfills all places; in which respect it is said, that he was in heaven\nwhilst here on earth.[238]\n\n2. When we say, that Christ ascended into heaven in his human nature,\nthis is not to be understood in a metaphorical sense, as though it\ndenoted only his being advanced to a more glorious state, than he was in\nbefore his death; since heaven signifies a glorious place, as well as\nstate. Were it only to be taken in the former sense, it might, for the\nsame reason, be said, that there are no saints, or angels, locally in\nheaven, since the metaphor might as well be applied to them, as to our\nSaviour, which is directly contrary to the known acceptation of the word\nin scripture. Moreover, that his ascending into heaven denotes a change\nof place, as well as state, is evident, inasmuch as, though his state of\nhumiliation was over immediately after his resurrection; yet he says,\nconcerning his human nature, that, during his abode forty days here on\nearth, though raised from the dead, _I am not yet ascended to my\nFather_, John xx. 17. therefore,\n\n3. His ascension into heaven is to be understood, in the most proper and\nknown sense of the word, inferring a change of place, as well as state,\ndenoting his being carried from this lower to the upper world, in his\nhuman nature, and so entering into that glorious place, as well as\ntriumphant state. This is called, _The heaven of heavens_, Psal.\ncxlviii. 4. which gives us ground to conclude, that the word _heaven_ is\ntaken in various senses in scripture: thus it is sometimes taken for the\nair; and accordingly _the fowls_, that fly in it, are said to _fly in\nthe midst of heaven_, Rev. xix. 17. and sometimes it is taken for the\nclouds, and so we read of the _rain_, Deut. xi. 11. or _dew of heaven_,\nGen. xxvii. 28. as coming down from thence; and sometimes it is taken\nfor the stars, as we read of the _stars of heaven_, chap. xxii. 17. but,\nbesides all these senses of the word, it is taken for the seat of the\nblessed, the throne of God, where he manifests himself, in a glorious\nmanner, to his saints and angels. To this place Christ ascended; and, in\nthis respect, it is not only said that he _went_ into heaven, but that\n_he was made higher than the heavens_, Heb. vii. 26. or that _he\nascended far above all heavens_, Eph. iv. 10. Thus it is said, in this\nanswer, that he went up into the highest heaven.\n\nNow that Christ ascended into heaven, and that in a visible and glorious\nmanner is evident from the account we have hereof in scripture: which,\ntogether with the circumstances that went immediately before it, is what\nis next to be considered. Accordingly we read, in scripture,\n\nThat when the eleven disciples were assembled together, he came with a\ndesign to take his leave of them; and, after having _opened their\nunderstandings that they might understand the scriptures_, and had\nfarther confirmed their faith, by applying them to himself, and had\nconcluded all those necessary instructions, which he gave them, _he led\nthem as far as Bethany_; and then it is said, in Luke xxiv. 50-53. _He\nlift up his hands and blessed them; and, while he blessed them, he was\nparted from them, and carried into heaven_. But, inasmuch as this\nrelation seems somewhat different from the account given of it by the\nsame inspired writer, in Acts i. 12. who observes, that, when Christ had\nascended into heaven, in the sight of his disciples, _they returned to\nJerusalem, from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a\nSabbath day\u2019s journey_; and therefore it is plain that he ascended into\nheaven from that mountain; how then could he ascend thither from\nBethany? It is observed, that Bethany, John xi. 18. was about fifteen\nfurlongs from Jerusalem, and the mount of Olives a Sabbath-day\u2019s\njourney; so that Bethany and the mount of Olives seem to be almost a\nmile distant from each other: if Christ ascended from one of these\nplaces into heaven, how could he then be said to ascend from the other.\n\nThe answer that may be given to this seeming inconsistency, between\nthese two accounts of the place from whence Christ ascended into heaven,\nis, that the town of Bethany was situate at the foot of the mount of\nOlives; therefore that part of the mountain that was nearest to it,\nmight have two names, to wit, Olivet, which was the name of the whole\nmountain, or Bethany, which denomination it might take from the\nadjoining village.\n\nOr, if this be not sufficient to account for the difficulty before\nmentioned, we may suppose, that when the evangelist says, in one of\nthese places, that our Saviour _led them out as far as Bethany_, he does\nnot say he was taken up into heaven from thence; but, after he led them\nthere, _he blessed them, and, while he blessed them, he was parted from\nthem_; therefore it is probable, that, when he was come to Bethany he\ngave them an intimation that he should soon be received into heaven;\nand, while he was going from thence, or going up the mount of Olives, he\ncontinued blessing them; and, when he was come up to that part of the\nmount from whence he ascended, he _lifts up his hands_, and conferred\nhis last benediction on them, upon which he _was parted from them, and a\ncloud received_ and conveyed him to heaven; so that there is no\ninconsistency between the two scriptures, as to the place from whence he\nascended. It is farther observed, that his ascension was visible; _they\nlooked stedfastly towards heaven as he went up_, Acts i. 10.\n\nFrom this account of Christ\u2019s ascension into heaven, we may make two or\nthree remarks.\n\n_1st_, As to the place from whence he ascended, which was the mount of\nOlives, it may be observed, that it was the same place to which he often\nretired, when he was at Jerusalem, to converse with God in secret, Luke\nxxiii. 39. Here it was that he was in his agony, ver. 44. in which he\nsweat great drops of blood, when having a very terrible apprehension of\nthe wrath of God, which he was to bear, as a punishment due to our sin,\nwhich was the most bitter part of his sufferings; and therefore here he\nchose to begin his triumphs, as from hence he ascended into heaven. And\nhereby it seems, as it were, to give an intimation to his people, that\nthey ought to set the glory, which they shall be advanced to, against\nthe sufferings of this present life, as a ground of encouragement and\nsupport to them. That place, which, at one time, discovered nothing but\nwhat was matter of distress and anguish of spirit; at another time\nopened a glorious scene of joy and happiness. This mountain, which\nbefore had been a witness to that horror and amazement, in which our\nSaviour was, when in the lowest depths of his humbled state, now\nrepresents him as entering immediately into his glory.\n\nThe place in the mountain, from whence he ascended, is not particularly\nmentioned; nor is there any mark of sanctity put on it; though the\nPapists with a great deal of superstition, pretend to discover the very\nspot of ground from whence our Saviour ascended, and impose on those who\nwill believe them, by shewing them the print of the feet, which, they\nsuppose, he left behind him upon the mountain; in which place they have\nerected a church, open at the top, to signify his ascension into heaven:\nbut this is little better than a fabulous conjecture. It is an easy\nmatter to find some hollow place, in any mountain; but to say that any\nsuch small valley was made by our Saviour\u2019s feet, as a memorial of his\nascending from thence, is nothing else but an imposition on the\ncredulity of ignorant persons, without scripture-warrant.\n\n_2dly_, From what is said concerning Christ\u2019s conversing with his\ndisciples about the things pertaining to the kingdom of God, we may\nobserve, that the work he was engaged in, just before his ascension into\nheaven, was of such a nature, that it is a very desirable thing for a\nperson, when called out of the world to be found so doing. Our Saviour\u2019s\nwhole conversation, while on earth, had some way or other, a reference\nto the kingdom of heaven, and had a tendency to bring his people there;\nand this was the last subject that he conversed with them about.\n\n_3dly_, What is said concerning his blessing them when he was parted\nfrom them, was agreeable to what is mentioned concerning Elijah, whose\ntranslation into heaven was a type of Christ\u2019s ascension thither,\nconcerning whom it is said, that he bade Elisha _ask what he should do_\nor desire of God _for him, before he was taken from him_, 2 Kings ii. 9.\nAs the great design of our Saviour\u2019s coming into the world, was to be a\npublick blessing to his people; so the last thing he did for them, was\nblessing them, and that either by conferring blessedness upon them, as a\ndivine Person, or else by praying for a blessing for them as man,\nwhereby he gave them a specimen of the work which he is engaged in, in\nheaven, who ever lives to make intercession for them; and it is farther\nobserved, that _he lift up his hands, and blessed them_. Sometimes when\npersons blessed others, they did it by laying their hands upon them:\nthis Jacob did, when he blessed the sons of Joseph, Gen. xlviii. 14. as\na sign of his faith, which was herein expressed, that blessings should\ndescend from God upon them. And, when many persons were blessed at the\nsame time, instead of laying their hands on them, they sometimes lifted\nthem up; accordingly Aaron is said _to lift up his hands towards the\npeople, and bless them_, Lev. ix. 22. So Christ lifted up his hands when\nhe blessed his disciples, as an external sign of his lifting up his\nheart to God, while he prayed for the blessings which they stood in need\nof. Thus concerning Christ\u2019s ascension into heaven.\n\nThere is one thing more mentioned in this answer, which I cannot wholly\npass over, namely, that he did this as our Head. The headship of Christ\nis a circumstance often mentioned by the apostle Paul, who supposes him\nto stand in this relation to his people, in every thing that he did for\nthem as Mediator, in which he is considered as a public person, the\nRepresentative of all his elect, who acted in their name, as well as for\ntheir interest; which leads us to consider,\n\nIII. That it was necessary that Christ should ascend into heaven after\nhe had finished his work on earth; for this was an accomplishment of\nwhat was foretold concerning him. This the Psalmist mentions, in a very\nbeautiful and magnificent way, _Lift up your heads, O ye gates, and be\nye lift up ye everlasting doors, and the King of glory shall come in_,\nPsal. xxiv. 9. and elsewhere it is said, _Thou hast ascended on high_,\nPsal. lxviii. 18. which the apostle Paul particularly applies to his\nascension into heaven, as a prediction thereof, Eph. iv. 8. and this was\nalso signified by that eminent type of it, which was equivalent to a\nprediction, in the high priest\u2019s entering into the holiest of all, which\nthe apostle also speaks of, as shadowing forth the same thing, Heb. ix.\n7, 8, 9, 11, 24.\n\nMoreover, this was foretold by our Saviour himself, whilst he was here\non earth, before and after his death, when he tells his disciples, _I go\nto prepare a place for you_, John xiv. 2. and, _I ascend to my Father_,\n&c. chap. xx. 17. so that there was really an appeal to his ascension\ninto heaven, as well as to his resurrection, for the proof of his\nmission, and his relation to God, as his Father, therefore it was\nnecessary that he should ascend thither. It was also necessary, as this\nwas a glory promised him, as the consequence of his sufferings; and\naccordingly _it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all\nthings, to make the Captain of our salvation perfect, through_, or after\nhis _sufferings_, Heb. ii. 10.\n\nIt was also necessary that he should ascend visibly into heaven, or that\nhis apostles, who were to be witnesses thereof, as well as of his\nresurrection, should see him go thither: for this was necessary to be\nbelieved, as well as the other, and whatever they were to give their\ntestimony to, must be the result of the fullest conviction; and\ntherefore, that they might convince the world that he was ascended into\nheaven, they must be qualified to tell them, that they saw him ascend\nthere.\n\n_Object._ If it be objected, that, since they might give their testimony\nthat he rose again from the dead, though they did not see him rise, they\nmight attest the truth of his ascension, though they had not seen him\nascend into heaven.\n\n_Answ._ To this I answer. It is true, their witness that he was risen\nfrom the dead, was sufficient, though they did not see him rise,\ninasmuch as they saw him after he was risen, and had undeniable proofs\nthat he was the same Person that suffered; yet there is a circumstance\nattending his ascension into heaven, which renders it necessary that\nthey should see him ascend there, though it was not necessary that they\nshould see him rise from the dead, in order to their giving conviction\nto the world as to this matter; for he did not design that they should\nsee him, after his ascension, till his second coming to receive them\ninto heaven, and then their testimony will be at an end; and therefore\nit was necessary that they should see him ascend. The apostle Paul, it\nis true, at his conversion, saw him clothed with his heavenly glory in\nhis exalted state; but this was a singular and extraordinary instance,\nwhich he gave his other disciples no ground to expect; therefore, that\nthey might want no qualification that was necessary, in order to the\nfulfilling their testimony, he ascended into heaven visibly, in the\npresence of all his apostles.\n\nIV. There are several great and valuable ends of Christ\u2019s ascension,\nmentioned in this answer, some of which were glorious to himself, and\nall of them advantageous to his people. Accordingly it is observed,\n\n1. That he triumphed over his enemies; as the apostle says, _When he\nascended up on high, he led captivity captive_, Eph. iv. 8. which is an\nallusion to the solemn triumphs of princes, after having obtained some\nremarkable and complete victories. Now the empire of Satan was\ndemolished, his prisoners ransomed, and accordingly delivered from his\npower; and the gospel, which was to be preached throughout the world,\nwas a public _proclamation of liberty to captives, and the opening of\nthe prison doors to them that were bound_, Isa. lxi. 1. compared with\nLuke iv. 18.\n\n2. Christ ascended into heaven, that he might receive gifts for men. The\nscripture seems to distinguish between Christ\u2019s purchasing and his\nreceiving gifts for men; the former was done by his death; the latter\nwas consequent on his ascension into heaven. There are two expressions\nused relating to this matter, namely, that of the Psalmist, _Thou hast\nreceived gifts for men_, Psal. lxviii. 18. and the apostle\u2019s reference\nthereunto, when he says, _He gave gifts unto men_, Eph. iv. 8. that is,\nhe received gifts for men, with a design to give them to them, which he\ndid, after his ascension into heaven, when there was a very great\neffusion of the Spirit on the gospel-church erected, and furnished with\na variety of ministers, such as _Apostles, prophets, pastors, and\nteachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the\nministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ_, ver. 11, 12. which is\na farther allusion to the custom of princes in their triumphs, on which\noccasion they extend their royal bounty to their subjects.\n\n3. Christ\u2019s ascension into heaven to _prepare a place_ for his people,\nas he told them he would do, after his death, John xiv. 2. and\naccordingly he is said to _have entered there as the Fore-runner_, Heb.\nvi. 20. and so he took possession of those heavenly mansions in their\nname, to which he designs, at last, to bring them.\n\n4. It is farther observed, that he ascended into heaven, to raise up\ntheir affections thither, and to induce them to _set their affections on\nthings above_, Colos. iii. 2. That place is always most dear to us,\nwhich is our home, our rest, where our best friends reside; our thoughts\nare most conversant about it, and we are inclined to desire to be with\nthem there; therefore Christ\u2019s being in heaven, together with all his\nsaints, is a motive to all believers to have their _conversation in\nheaven_, which is the character given of them by the apostle, Phil. iii.\n20.\n\n5. The last thing observed in this answer is, that Christ designed to\ncontinue in heaven till his second coming at the end of the world; as it\nis said, _Whom the heavens must receive, till the time of the\nrestitution of all things_, Acts iii. 21. and then he will come again in\nthis lower world, not to reside or fix his abode here, but to receive\nhis people into heaven, where they shall be with him to all eternity, as\nit is said, _So shall we ever be with the Lord_, 1 Thes. iv. 17. Thus\nconcerning Christ\u2019s exaltation in his ascension into heaven; we now\nproceed to consider him,\n\n_Secondly_, As exalted in sitting at the right hand of God, which is a\nglory that was conferred upon him after his ascension into heaven. This\nis a figurative way of speaking, which the Holy Ghost condescends to\nmake use of; and it cannot be understood in any other sense, since God\nbeing a Spirit, is without body, or bodily parts; and, being immense,\n_the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain him_, 1 Kings viii. 27.\ntherefore it does not denote the situation of Christ\u2019s human nature in\nsome particular part of heaven, but his being advanced to the highest\nhonour there. As the _right hand_, amongst men, is used to signify some\npeculiar marks of honour conferred on them who are seated there; thus\nwhen Bathsheba went in unto king Solomon, he caused a seat to be set for\nher, and she sat at his _right hand_, chap. ii. 19. So when Christ is\nsaid to _sit on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the\nheavens_, Heb. viii. 1. it denotes the highest degree of honour\nconferred on him, as Mediator; and particularly his sitting there\ndenotes,\n\n1. That glorious rest which he enjoys, after having sustained many\nlabours and afflictions in this world; a sweet repose, and perfect\ndeliverance from all those things which formerly tended to make him\nuneasy, while in his way to it.\n\n2. It also implies that honour and supreme authority which he is\ninvested with. Others are represented as servants standing in the\npresence of God; accordingly it is said, _Thousand thousands ministered\nunto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him_, Dan.\nvii. 10. but Christ is distinguished from them all by this mark of regal\ndignity, in that he _sits and rules upon his throne_, Zech. vi. 13. Thus\nthe apostle says, concerning him, that, having _purged our sins, he sat\ndown on the right hand of the Majesty on high_, intimating, that he was\n_made so much better than the angels, as he hath, by inheritance,\nobtained a more excellent name than they_, Heb. i. 3, 4. which he\nfarther proves, when he says, _To which of the angels, said he, at any\ntime, sit on my right hand till I make thine enemies thy footstool_,\nver. 13.\n\n3. It also signifies the perpetuity, or eternal duration of his\nMediatorial glory and authority, as to _sit_, in scripture, often\nsignifies, to abide: but this has been before considered, when we spake\nconcerning the eternity of Christ\u2019s kingdom[239]. There are other\nthings, mentioned in this answer, which are the fruits and effects of\nChrist\u2019s sitting at the right hand of God, to wit, the exercise of his\npower over all things in heaven and earth; and, as the consequence\nthereof, gathering and defending his church, subduing their enemies, and\nfurnishing his ministers with gifts and graces: but these will be more\nparticularly insisted on, under a following answer, in which we shall be\nled to speak concerning the special privileges of the visible\nchurch[240]. Therefore what we are next to consider is, that Christ, as\nsitting at the right hand of God, makes intercession for his people.\n\nFootnote 238:\n\n _See Vol. I. page 347._\n\nFootnote 239:\n\n _See Page 393._\n\nFootnote 240:\n\n _See Quest._ lxii, lxiii.\n\n\n\n\n Quest. LV.\n\n\n QUEST. LV. _How doth Christ make intercession?_\n\n ANSW. Christ maketh intercession, by his appearing in our nature,\n continually before the Father in heaven, in the merit of his\n obedience and sacrifice on earth, declaring his will to have it\n applied to all believers, answering all accusations against them,\n procuring for them quiet of conscience, notwithstanding daily\n failings, access with boldness to the throne of grace, and\n acceptance of their persons and services.\n\nThe intercession of Christ, as has been observed, under a foregoing\nanswer, is a branch of his priestly office, and is founded on his\nsatisfaction. The reason why it is mentioned in this place, after we\nhave had an account of his death, resurrection, and ascension into\nheaven, is, as I conceive, because the apostle lays down these heads in\nthe same order, when he speaks of them, _It is Christ that died, yea,\nrather that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who\nalso maketh intercession for us_, Rom. viii. 34. In speaking concerning\nChrist\u2019s intercession,\n\nI. We shall consider the necessity thereof; and that,\n\n1. Because this was foretold and typified. It was predicted, concerning\nhim, that he should _make intercession for transgressors_, Isa. liii.\n12. and elsewhere God the Father is represented, as saying to him, _Ask\nof me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the\nuttermost parts of the earth for thy possession_, Psal. ii. 8. which\nwords, though they contain the form of a command, are, doubtless, a\nprediction relating to this matter, whereby it is intimated, that the\nglorious success of the gospel, when preached to the world, should not\nonly be the purchase of his death, but the consequence of his\nintercession; and what Elihu speaks of an advocate, as pleading the\ncause of a poor afflicted person, and saying, _Deliver him from going\ndown to the pit; I have found a ransom_; and as it is farther added; _He\nshall pray unto God, and he shall be favourable to him, and he shall\nbehold his face with joy; for he will render unto man his\nrighteousness_, Job xxxiii. 23, 24, 26. seems rather to be understood of\nChrist than any other; for it is most agreeable to the character given\nhim of a messenger with him, and an interpreter one among a thousand,\nand his being gracious unto him, when he thus makes intercession for\nhim.\n\nMoreover, when the Psalmist represents him, as saying, concerning his\nenemies, _I will not take up their names into my lips_, Psal. xvi. 4. it\nplainly intimates his design to intercede for all others, namely, for\nhis people. And that David does not here speak in his own person, but in\nthe person of Christ, is very evident, because it was his duty, in\ncommon with all mankind, to pray for his enemies; and therefore he\nspeaks of another sort of intercession, _viz._ Christ\u2019s, that which is\ndifferent from that which one man is obliged to make for another. This\nappears, in that, in some following verses, we have a prediction of his\nrising from the dead before he saw corruption, as it is particularly\napplied to him in the New Testament, Acts ii. 31.\n\nAnd to this we may add; that as Christ\u2019s intercession was expressly\nforetold by the prophets; so it was typified by the High Priest\u2019s\nentering every year into the holy of holies, with blood and incense, to\nappear before God in the behalf of the people, as making intercession\nfor them. This is expressly applied to Christ, as the anti-type, and his\n_entering into heaven; now to appear in the presence of God for us_,\nHeb. ix. 7, 9. compared with ver. 11, 12, 24.\n\n2. Christ\u2019s intercession was necessary, as the condition of fallen man\nrequired it. Some have been ready to conclude, that, by reason of that\ninfinite distance there is between God and man, it was necessary that\nthere should be an advocate to procure for him a liberty of access to\nGod: but that does not evidently appear, for as we have no ground to\nconclude, that the holy angels, though infinitely below him, are\nadmitted into his presence, or made partakers of the blessings, that are\nthe result thereof, by the intervention of an advocate, or intercessor,\nwith him, in their behalf; so man would not have stood in need of a\nMediator, or advocate, to bring him into the presence of God, or plead\nhis cause, any more than he would have needed a Redeemer, had he not\nfallen: but his present circumstances require both; it is necessary\ntherefore that Christ should intercede for him.\n\n(1.) Because, being guilty, he is rendered unworthy to come into the\npresence of God, and actually excluded from it; as the Psalmist says,\n_Thou art not a God that hast pleasure in wickedness; neither shall evil\ndwell with thee. The foolish shall not stand in thy sight; thou hatest\nall workers of iniquity_, Psal. v. 4, 5. This punishment is the\nimmediate consequence of guilt, whereby the sinner is exposed to the\ncurse of God, whose holiness obliges him to order such to depart from\nhim. Moreover, there is a servile fear, or dread of him, as a consuming\nfire that attends it; upon which account, he desires rather to fly from,\nthan to have access to him; therefore he needs an intercessor to procure\nthis privilege for him.\n\n(2.) There are many accusations brought in against him, as a ground and\nreason why he should be excluded from the divine favour, and not have\nany saving blessings applied to him, which must all be answered; and\ntherefore there is need of an advocate to plead his cause.\n\nII. None but Christ our great Mediator and advocate, is fit to manage\nthis important work for us. We cannot plead our own cause; for guilt\nstops our mouths, as well as renders us unworthy of any blessing from\nGod. And it is certain that no mere creature can do this for us; for\nnone can speak any thing in their favour, who are under a sentence of\ncondemnation, unless an expedient were found out to bring them into a\nstate of reconciliation with God, for that would tend to the dishonour\nof his justice; and none can plead for any blessing to be bestowed on\nthem, but he who was able to make atonement for them, which no mere\ncreature could do, since the greatest price, that he can give, is far\nfrom being of infinite value: but such a price as this Christ has laid\ndown, as has been before considered, in speaking concerning his priestly\noffice; and therefore he alone is fit to be an advocate, or intercessor,\nfor his people; which leads us to consider,\n\nIII. That Christ is his people\u2019s advocate, or makes intercession for\nthem. This appears from several scriptures; thus it is said, _He ever\nliveth to make intercession for them_, Heb. vii. 25. and _we have an\nAdvocate with the father, Jesus Christ the righteous_, 1 John ii. 1.\n\n1. Christ is represented as making intercession for his people before\nhis incarnation; as when it is said, Zech. iii. 2. _The Lord said unto\nSatan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan_[241].\n\n2. After his incarnation, he interceded for his people in his human\nnature; and while he was here on earth, he did it agreeably to that\nstate, in which he then was, though the efficacy of his intercession\ndepended on his compleating the work of our redemption, which was not\ndone before he arose from the dead; in which respect, there was\nsomething proleptical in his intercession then, as well as when he is\nrepresented as making intercession before his incarnation; therefore,\n\n3. As the price of redemption was not fully paid till his state of\nhumiliation was at an end, upon which account he is generally styled a\nconsummate Mediator from that time, when he was _made perfect through\nsufferings_, Heb. ii. 10. so he was, after that, a compleat advocate, or\nintercessor, for his people; in which respect, he is said, in a way of\neminency, _to make intercession for them_, after his death,\nresurrection, and ascension into heaven, in his glorified state, in\nwhich he manages their cause with an advantageous plea, which he could\nnot use, while here on earth; for then he had not accomplished his work\nof redemption, and therefore could only plead the promise made to him,\nupon condition of his bringing that work to perfection, which was then\nonly begun. And also whatever act of worship he then performed, it was\nagreeable to that state of humiliation, in which he was: but now he is\nin heaven, and consequently his work of redemption finished; he pleads\nhis absolute and actual right to receive those blessings for his people,\nand apply them to them, which God before had promised in the covenant of\nredemption; and this he does with those circumstances of glory, that are\nagreeable to his exalted state, as sitting at God\u2019s right hand, and\nhaving such visible marks of the divine favour, that nothing can be\ndenied him that he asks for. It is true, while he was here on earth, he\nsays, _Father I thank thee, that thou hearest me always_, &c. John xi.\n41, 42. which he might well say, inasmuch as there was sufficient\nsecurity, or ground to conclude, that he could not fail in the work\nwhich he was engaged in, so as to leave it incomplete. How much more may\nhe say this, when he is in his exalted state, and pleads as one that has\nbrought the work, he came into the world about, to perfection?\n\nAnd to this let me add, that he will intercede for his people for ever,\nas he shall always continue in this exalted state. And, indeed, it\ncannot be otherwise; if Christ\u2019s presence in heaven be a full and\ncomprehensive plea for all the blessings we enjoy or hope for; then so\nlong as he shall abide there, he will intercede for us, and that will be\nfor ever. That this may farther appear, let it be considered; that the\nsacrifice, which he offered for his people while on earth, procured for\nthem not only the blessings they enjoy in this world, but those that\nthey shall be possessed of in heaven. And as his being received into\nheaven was a convincing evidence, that what he did and suffered, before\nhe went thither, was accepted, and deemed effectual to answer all the\nvaluable ends thereof; so his continuance there will remain a standing\nand eternal evidence thereof; which contains in it the nature of a plea.\nBut this respects not only the blessings they now enjoy, but all that\nthey hope for, therefore their eternal happiness is founded thereon;\nwhich is what the apostle principally intends, when he says, _He ever\nliveth to make intercession for them_, Heb. vii. 25.\n\nIV. We shall now consider the difference between Christ\u2019s intercession\nfor us with the Father, and our praying for ourselves, or others, and\nthat when we address ourselves either to men or God.\n\n1. When we intercede with men to obtain some favour from them, we hope,\neither by our arguments, or importunity, or at least, by our interest in\nthem, or some obligation which we have laid them under, to persuade them\nto alter their minds, as we are treating with mutable creatures. But\nthis is by no means applicable to Christ\u2019s intercession, in which he\ndeals with an unchangeable God, who has, in various instances, declared\nhis love to, and willingness to save all those, whose salvation he\nintercedes for; in which sense we are to understand our Saviour\u2019s words,\n_I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you; for the Father\nhimself loveth you_, John xvi. 26, 27.\n\nMoreover, when we intercede with men for any favour, we don\u2019t usually\npresent any price paid by us for the benefit we intercede for; but\nChrist in interceding for his people, presents the merit of his\nobedience and sacrifice, which is the only thing that renders it\neffectual.\n\n2. When we pray to God for ourselves, or others, this differs from\nChrist\u2019s intercession, in that we present ourselves and our petitions to\nhim in the name of Christ, and hope for a gracious answer, in the virtue\nof his mediation and righteousness; so that our access to God is\nmediate, Christ\u2019s immediate. We plead what he hath done for us, as our\nSurety, and not any thing done by ourselves; but he pleads what was done\nby himself. We acknowledge, in all our supplications, that we are\nunworthy of the least of his mercies; whereas he appears in our behalf\nbefore God, as one who is worthy to have that granted which he pleads\nfor.\n\nV. We shall now consider how Christ makes intercession; and it is\nobserved, that he does this,\n\n1. By his appearing in our nature continually before the Father in\nheaven, in the merit of his obedience and sacrifice on earth. This is\ntaken from the practice of attornies, or advocates, in civil courts,\nwhen a cause is to be tried, in which case the plaintiff or defendant\ndoes not appear himself, but his advocate appears for him: thus Christ\n_appears in the presence of God for us_. This virtually includes in it\nthe nature of a plea. For the understanding of which, let it be\nconsidered, that as God cannot, consistently with the glory of his\ndivine perfections, save any of the fallen race of mankind, upon any\nother condition, than that satisfaction should be given to his justice,\nand such a price of redemption paid, as tended to secure the glory of\nhis holiness, and other perfections, he has, in his eternal covenant\nwith the Son, promised, that if he would perform this work, then he\nwould bring his people to glory. Christ, on the other hand, undertook it\nwith this encouragement, that, when he had perfected it, he should be\nreceived into glory, as a public testimony that justice was fully\nsatisfied; therefore his being set at God\u2019s right hand, in heavenly\nplaces, as the consequence thereof, is a convincing evidence, to angels\nand men, that his work is brought to perfection. Accordingly his being\nthere, or appearing in heaven, contains in it the nature of a plea; more\nespecially if we consider him as appearing there as our Head and\ncompleat Redeemer, who has finished the work which he came into the\nworld about. This I take to be the principal idea in Christ\u2019s\nintercession.\n\nIf it be farther enquired, whether he makes use of a voice, as we do,\nwhen we pray for ourselves, or others? I dare not deny that he does,\nsince he made use of words when he prayed for his people on earth; which\nwas a short specimen of his intercession for them in heaven: but yet it\nmust be considered,\n\n(1.) That it is impossible for words to express the particular\nnecessities of every one, whom he appears for in heaven, at the same\ntime; and to suppose that Christ represents the case of one at one time,\nand another at another, as we do when we pray for different persons, is\nhardly sufficient to answer all the valuable ends of his intercession,\nfor all his people at all times; neither are we to suppose, since the\nhuman nature of Christ is not omniscient, that he has therein a\ncomprehensive view, at once, of all the particular necessities of his\npeople, for that would be to confound his human nature with his divine;\nand it is only in the human nature that he prays, though the efficacy of\nthis prayer is founded on the infinite value of his oblation performed\ntherein, which was the result of its union with the divine, as has been\nbefore observed[242]; therefore,\n\n(2.) When Christ is said to make use of words in interceding for his\npeople, these are principally to be considered, as expressive of their\nwants and infirmities in a general way; so that a few comprehensive\nwords may include in them the general idea of those things that are\ncommon to them all. In this respect, I am far from denying that Christ,\nin interceding for his people, makes use of words; but, when we consider\nhis being in heaven, or appearing in the presence of God in the behalf\nof his people, as virtually containing (as was before hinted) the nature\nof a plea, this extends itself to every particular necessity of those\nfor whom he intercedes at all times.\n\n2. It is farther observed, that Christ, in making intercession, declares\nhis will to have the merit of his obedience and sacrifice applied to all\nbelievers: thus he says, _Father, I will that they also whom thou hast\ngiven me be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory_, &c. John\nxvii. 24. in which he does, as it were, make a demand of what is due to\nhim, in right of his purchase; and so it is distinguished from a\nsupplication, or entreaty, that God would bestow an unmerited favour.\nAll our prayers, indeed, are supplications, that God would bestow upon\nus undeserved blessings; but Christ\u2019s prayer is a kind of demand, of a\ndebt due to him pursuant to the merit of his obedience and sufferings.\nMoreover, this mode of speaking may be farther understood, as containing\nan intimation of his divine will, to have what he purchased, in his\nhuman nature, applied to his people; though this is rather a consequence\nof his intercession, than, properly speaking, a formal act thereof.\n\n3. It is farther observed, that he intercedes for his people, by\nanswering all accusations that may be brought in against them: thus the\napostle, Rom. viii. 33, 34. supposes a charge to have been brought in\nagainst God\u2019s elect, and that they were under a sentence of\ncondemnation; and shews how this sentence is reversed by the death of\nChrist; and the charge answered by his intercession. If we consider the\nmany things laid to the charge of God\u2019s elect, either by the world,\nsatan, or their own consciences, these are supposed to be either false\nor true. What is falsely alleged, Christ, as their Advocate, answers, by\ndenying the charge, and undertakes to vindicate them from it: but when\nthe thing laid to their charge is undeniably true; as, for instance,\nthat they are sinners, and have thereby contracted guilt, and deserve to\nbe for ever banished from the presence of God; this Christ undertakes to\nanswer, no otherwise than by pleading the merit of his obedience and\nsatisfaction, whereby they obtain remission of sins and a right to\neternal life.\n\nVI. Christ, by his intercession, procures for his people many valuable\nprivileges, three of which are mentioned in this answer.\n\n(1.) Quiet of conscience, notwithstanding daily failings. This supposes,\nthat the best believers on earth, by reason of the remainders of\nindwelling corruption, are liable to many sinful infirmities; as it is\nsaid, _There is not a just man upon earth, that doth good and sinneth\nnot_, Eccles. vii. 20. and, _If we say we have no sin, we deceive\nourselves, and the truth is not in us_, 1 John i. 8. And these have a\nproportionable degree of guilt attending them; and this guilt has a\ntendency to make the conscience uneasy, unless we have an Advocate, who\nhas a sufficient plea to allege in our defence: but such an one is\nChrist, and consequently his intercession procures for us this\nprivilege; _If any man sin we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus\nChrist the righteous_, chap. ii. 1.\n\n(2.) He also procures for us access, with boldness, to the throne of\ngrace. As sin renders us guilty; so guilt exposes us to fear, and a\ndread of coming before the throne of God, as a God of infinite holiness\nand justice: but when he is represented as sitting on a throne of grace,\nas the consequence of Christ\u2019s death and intercession, our servile fear\nis removed, and we are encouraged, as the apostle says, to _come boldly\nunto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to\nhelp in time of need_, Heb. iv. 16.\n\n(3.) Another consequence of Christ\u2019s intercession is, the acceptance of\nour persons and services; first, of our persons, then of our services;\nas it is said, _The Lord had respect unto Abel, and to his offering_,\nGen. iv. 4. The acceptance of our persons is a branch of our\njustification, which is founded on Christ\u2019s sacrifice and intercession,\nas it is said, _He hath made us accepted in the beloved_, Eph. i. 6. And\nthe acceptance of our services, which are performed by faith, supposes\nthe removal of the guilt that attends them, by reason of our sinful\ninfirmities: thus God\u2019s people are called an _holy priesthood_, and said\n_to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ_, 1\nPet. ii. 5.\n\nVII. Let us consider how Christ\u2019s intercession ought to be improved by\nus.\n\n1. It is a great remedy against those desponding or despairing thoughts,\nwhich we are sometimes liable to, by reason of the guilt of sin, when\ncharged on our consciences; in which case, we should give a check to\nourselves, and say, with the Psalmist, _Why art thou cast down, O my\nsoul? and why art thou disquieted within me?_ Psal. xlii. 10. Why should\nwe entertain such sad and melancholy thoughts, especially if Christ\nintercedes, on our behalf, for the forgiveness of all our sins? and our\nsincere repentance, together with the exercise of those other graces,\nthat accompany it, will afford us an evidence of our interest in this\nprivilege, which will be an expedient to raise our dejected spirits, and\nfill us with the joy of his salvation.\n\n2. Christ\u2019s intercession is to be improved by us, as an encouragement to\nprayer; and, as a farther ground, to conclude, that our poor, broken,\nimperfect breathings, shall be heard and answered for his sake, who\npleads our cause.\n\n3. This is a great inducement to universal holiness, when we have ground\nto conclude, that those services, that are performed to his glory, shall\nbe accepted, upon the account of his intercession.\n\nFootnote 241:\n\n _Christ did not intercede for his church before his incarnation\n formally, inasmuch as it is inconsistent with his divine nature to\n pray; prayer being an act of worship; but virtually, by which we are\n to understand that all the blessings which the church then enjoyed,\n were founded on the sacrifice, which, in the fulness of time, he\n designed to offer; and this is, by a prolepsis, represented as though\n it had been then done, in the same sense as he is elsewhere said to\n be_ the Lamb slain, from the foundation of the world. _See page 397._\n\nFootnote 242:\n\n _See Page 235._\n\n\n\n\n Quest. LVI.\n\n\n QUEST. LVI. _How is Christ to be exalted in his coming again to\n judge the world?_\n\n ANSW. Christ is to be exalted in his coming again to judge the\n world, in that he, who was unjustly judged and condemned by wicked\n men, shall come again at the last day, in great power, and in the\n full manifestation of his own glory, and of his Father\u2019s, with all\n his holy angels, with a shout, with the voice of the arch-angel, and\n with the trumpet of God, to judge the world in righteousness.\n\nOur Saviour being in his exalted state, is to continue at the right hand\nof God, till he has finished the remaining part of his work, in the\napplication of redemption, and, by his Spirit, in the methods of his\nprovidence and grace, brought in the whole number of the elect; after\nwhich follows another branch of his Mediatorial glory, when he shall\ncome again to judge the world at the last day, which is the subject\nmatter of this answer. For the understanding of which, let it be\nconsidered,\n\nI. That though he was, before this, solemnly invested with a power of\nexercising judgment, and is continually distributing rewards and\npunishments in the course of his providence; yet the full manifestation\nof his glory, as Judge of quick and dead, and that in a visible manner\nin his human nature, is deferred till the last day. Though he be now\nknown by the judgments that he executes, which are oftentimes attended\nwith wonderful displays of his divine glory; and, though the eternal\nstate of all men be fixed by him at their death, at which time a\nparticular judgment is passed on them by him, as the apostle says, _It\nis appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment_, Heb.\nix. 27. yet this is done without those external and visible marks of\nglory in his human nature, with which he shall appear in the end of\ntime. This is styled, _The last day_, John xi. 24. chap. xii. 48. and,\nin that respect, that measure of duration, which we generally call time,\nwill be ended, and another, which is distinguished from it, which, by\nreason of its having no end, is called eternity, shall commence; not\nthat it is like eternity of God, without succession: but some think it\ndiffers from time, principally in this, that it shall not be described\nby the same measures that it now is; nor shall the motion of the\nheavenly bodies produce those effects which they do, in the frame of\nnature, whereby the various changes of seed-time and harvest, summer and\nwinter, day and night follow each other in their respective courses.\n\nSome, indeed, think that this is called a _day_, in the same sense as\nthe present season, or dispensation of grace, is sometimes called the\nsinner\u2019s _day_, Luke xix. 42. or the day of God\u2019s patience, and\nlong-suffering. And when this shall be at an end, and the gospel, which\nis compared to a glorious light, that shines therein, shall be no longer\npreached, the end thereof being fully answered, this may well be styled\nthe last day, when Christ shall come to judgment.\n\nII. This glorious appearing of Christ to judge the world, is set in\nopposition to that part of his state of humiliation, in which he was\nunjustly judged and condemned by wicked men, and is designed to\naggravate the crime of those, at whose tribunal he stood, who, though he\nthen told them of this matter, namely, _that hereafter they should see\nthe Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the\nclouds of heaven_, Matt. xxvi. 64. yet they believed him not. And this\nmay also be considered, as set in opposition to all that contempt, which\nhis name, interest, and gospel, daily meet with, in an ungodly world,\nwhereby he is, as it were, judged and condemned afresh, and the unjust\nsentence that was passed upon him, in effect, approved of; from all\nwhich, Christ shall be for ever vindicated, when his glory shines forth\nin a most illustrious manner, as calling the whole world to stand at his\ntribunal, and rewarding every one according to their works.\n\nIII. The time when Christ shall thus come to judge the world, is\nunknown, either by angels or men; and, indeed, our Saviour himself,\nwhile here on earth, speaks of this, as a secret, that had not been made\nknown to him, as man, Mark xiii. 32. and the reason why God has thus\nconcealed it, is because he would not give occasion to any to indulge\nthe least degree of carnal security, (for the same reason that he has\nnot made known to us the term or bounds of life) but that we may be\nalways ready for his coming. Therefore we cannot but reckon it an\ninstance of unwarrantable presumption in several Jewish writers, and\nsome of the Fathers after them,[243] to suppose, as they do, that the\nworld shall continue six thousand years, from the creation; and that, as\nit was made in six days, and the seventh ordained to be a Sabbath, this\nhad a mystical signification; and accordingly, in its application to\nthis matter, a day answers to a thousand years; or that, as the world\nwas two thousand years without the written word, or law of God, and\nafter that, two thousand years under the law, so the days of the Messiah\nshall continue two thousand years, and then follows the eternal\nsabbatism at Christ\u2019s second coming. As for the Jews, who speak of this\nmatter, their unbelief is condemned out of their own mouths; since they\ndo, as it were, concede, that the time in which the Messiah was to come,\nwas that in which he actually appeared; notwithstanding, this is a\ngroundless conjecture, so far as it respects the end of the world; and,\nindeed, it is an entering into a secret, which is altogether hid from\nmankind.\n\nIV. We are now to consider that glory with which Christ shall appear,\nwhen he comes to judge the world. Accordingly it is said, he shall come\nin the full manifestation of his own glory, and of his Father\u2019s, with\nall his holy angels, and with other circumstances, that will be very\nawful and tremendous.\n\n1. He shall come in his own glory, by which we are to understand, that\nthe glory of his divine nature shall shine forth, or be demonstrated in\na more illustrious manner, than it has hitherto been. When he was here\non earth, this glory had, as it were a veil put on it, by reason of the\nlow and humbled state of his human nature: but, when he shall come again\nin his exalted state, it will never be a matter of doubt to any, whether\nhe be God incarnate or no. And to this we may add, that there will be\nmany things done by him, when he comes to judgment, which will be\neminently the effects of his divine power, wisdom, justice, goodness,\nand faithfulness, whereby the glory of his divine nature will farther\nappear, in determining the final state, both of angels and men.\n\n2. He is also said to appear in his Father\u2019s glory. For the\nunderstanding of which let us consider,\n\n(1.) That whatever work he is engaged in, or glory he receives as\nMediator, it takes its rise from the Father; it was he that called him\nto perform it, sanctified, and sent him into the world, furnished him\nwith an human nature, united to his divine Person. From him it was that\nhe received a commission to lay down his life, and to take it upon him\nagain; and it is he who hath appointed the day in which he will judge\nthe world; and, pursuant to this decree and appointment, he will come to\nperform this glorious work.\n\n(2.) Every thing that he does as Mediator, is referred to the glory of\nthe Father; as he says, _I honour my Father_, John viii. 49. and\ntherefore this work, which is, as it were, the laying the top-stone of\nthe glorious fabric of our salvation, will tend eminently to set forth\nthe Father\u2019s glory, who laid the foundation stone thereof.\n\n(3.) Whatever work he performs for the honour of the Father, he receives\nfrom him, a testimony of his highest approbation of him therein. When he\nwas here on earth, as the apostle says, _He received from the Father\nhonour and glory; when there came such a voice to him from the excellent\nglory, saying, This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased_, 2 Pet.\ni. 17. This testimony was given to him at his baptism, and\ntransfiguration in the holy mount; the latter of which the apostle more\nimmediately refers to, as appears by the following words; therefore we\nmay conclude,\n\n(4.) That since his coming to judgment will be the most illustrious part\nof his mediatorial work, he will have the most glorious testimony from\nthe Father; and, indeed, his receiving the saints into heaven, who are\nstyled, _Blessed of his Father_, who shall _inherit the kingdom which he\nhad prepared for them, from the foundation of the world_, Matt. xxv. 34.\nwill be a standing monument of his approbation of him, or\nwell-pleasedness with whatever he has done in order thereunto; and\ntherefore he may well be said to come in the glory of his Father.\n\nV. He is farther said to come in the glory of his angels. This, indeed\nis to be understood in a sense different from that of his appearing in\nhis own glory, or that of his Father; for the angels are said rather to\nbehold and admire his glory, than to confer any branch thereof upon him.\nHowever, they are described as attending him in his coming, as it is\nsaid, _He shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him_,\nver. 31. and accordingly he will appear in the glory of his angels, as\nthey shall be his retinue, and bear a part in the solemnity of that day,\nwhereby they not only acknowledge his rightful authority to engage in\nthis glorious work, but their willingness to attend him in every part\nthereof, in which he thinks fit to employ them, as ministering spirits,\nin subserviency to the proceedings of that day. And this leads us to\nconsider that glorious solemnity, together with some things that will be\ndone, preparatory to Christ\u2019s judging the world. Accordingly it is said,\n\nVI. That he shall come with a shout, with the voice of the arch-angel,\nand with the trumpet of God, which are the apostle\u2019s words, 1 Thes. iv.\n16. and he adds, that this shall be attended with the resurrection from\nthe dead, and the change of those _who being found alive, shall be\ncaught up together in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air_; and\nelsewhere he says, _The trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be\nraised incorruptible, and we shall be changed_, 1 Cor. xv. 52. and our\nSaviour speaks of a throne\u2019s being erected; and that _when he shall come\nin his glory, and all the holy angels with him, he shall sit on the\nthrone of his glory_, Matt. xxv. 31, 32. We also read of the gathering\nof the whole world before him, and the separation of the righteous from\nthe wicked, which is said to be done by the ministry of angels, chap.\nxxiv. 31. and chap. xix. 28. these things will immediately go before\nChrist\u2019s judging the world: but since it is expressly said, in this\nanswer, that he shall come with a shout, with the voice of the\narchangel, and the trumpet of God, this we shall particularly consider.\nAnd,\n\n1. When he is said to come with a shout, and with the voice of the\narchangel, it does not seem probable, that by a shout, is meant an\narticulate sound, as the word is sometimes applied, when used by us, as\nsignifying that joy and triumph which is expressed by those who shout\nfor victory. Notwithstanding the word may be understood in a\nmetaphorical sense, signifying some triumphant expressions of joy,\nsuitable to the great occasions; or the word,[244] which we render a\nshout, may signify the powerful word of command given by our Saviour,\nwhereby the dead are called out of their graves; and agreeable hereunto,\nit is added, that Christ shall come with the voice of the arch-angel.\nThis has given occasion, to some, to enquire, whether there be one among\nthe angels who is called so, as being the prince and chief of all the\nrest, who will receive the word immediately from Christ, and transmit it\nto other angels, whereby the world will be summoned to appear before his\ntribunal; but it is very difficult for us to account for this matter.\nThat there is a very beautiful order and harmony among the angels, is\nbeyond dispute; nevertheless, we have no ground to assert, that one is\nsuperior to the rest, unless that be the meaning of the word arch-angel,\nin this, and two or three other scriptures, in which we meet with it.\nBut, though I will not contend with those who are otherwise minded, yet\nI am rather inclined to think that the word is always applied to our\nSaviour, and that he is called the arch-angel, as he is the head and\nsovereign of all the angels, who, as the apostle says, _were created by\nhim, and for him_, Col. i. 16. and who are commanded _to worship him_,\nHeb. i. 6. and, as it is said elsewhere, _Angels, authorities, and\npowers, are made subject unto him_, 1 Pet. ii. 22. therefore he\ncertainly has a greater right to this glorious character than any\ncreature.\n\nIf to this it be objected, that Christ\u2019s being said to come with the\nvoice of the arch-angel, denotes, that the arch-angel is distinguished\nfrom him; to this it may be replied, that this does not necessarily\nfollow from hence; for the meaning of the words may be this, that the\nLord shall descend with a shout, or powerful word of command, given\nforth by him, who is the prince and Lord of all the angels, and\ntransmitted by them to the whole world, who shall be hereby summoned to\nappear before him.\n\n2. He is said to come with the sound of a trumpet; which seems to allude\nto the use of trumpets, to gather the hosts of Israel together, when\nthey were to march by their armies, or in the day of their solemn\nfestivals, and in the year of Jubilee, which was proclaimed thereby; and\naccordingly this eternal Jubilee, and triumph of the saints, is said to\nbegin with the sound of a trumpet; not that there shall be a material\ntrumpet, like those in use among us, as some, who have low apprehensions\nof the glory of this day, have supposed, as though there were nothing\nfigurative in the mode of speaking; whereas the principal thing intended\nthereby is, that there shall be some glorious ensigns of the divine\nmajesty, or the effects of his power, which shall fill his saints with\nexceeding great joy, and his enemies with terror, and shall be a signal\nto all to appear before his tribunal. This is all we need to determine\nconcerning it; though I will not altogether deny the literal sense of\nthe words, provided they be understood in the same manner, as when God\nappeared from mount Sinai, _with the voice of a trumpet exceeding loud_,\nExod. xix. 16. it is not improbable that there will be a sound like that\nof a trumpet formed in the air, by the immediate power of God, which\nshall be heard throughout the whole world, which will be an intimation\nto all, that the great Judge of quick and dead is at hand, and will be a\nbranch of that external glory, with which he shall appear.\n\nWe might here have proceeded to consider Christ as seated on his throne,\nand the glorious work that he shall be engaged in, in judging the world\nin righteousness, which is the last thing mentioned in this answer: but,\nsince we are led particularly to insist on that subject, and to speak\nconcerning the persons to be judged, as set at Christ\u2019s right or left\nhand, together with the manner of proceeding in that day; the sentence\npassed, and the final estate of angels and men determined thereby,\ntogether with the consequence thereof, both to the righteous and wicked,\nin some following answers,[245] we shall proceed to speak concerning the\napplication of redemption, or the benefits procured by Christ\u2019s\nmediation.\n\nFootnote 243:\n\n _As for the Jewish writers, they mention a tradition taken from one\n Elias, which, some think, refers to a spurious writing, that went\n under the name of the prophet Elijah: but this they leave uncertain:\n neither do they signify whether it was a written or an oral tradition;\n nor do they intimate when, or where, this Elias lived. However, the\n tradition was received by many of them. It is mentioned in the Talmud\n in Tract. Sanhedrim, cap._ xi. _\u00a7 29. Edit. a Cocc._ Traditio est\n domus Eli\u00e6: Sex mille annos durat mundus: bis mille annis inanitas &\n vastitas. Bis mille annis Lex. Denique bis mille annis dies Christi.\n At vero propter peccata nostra & plurima & enormia, abierunt ex bis,\n qui abierunt. _And the same is mentioned in another Talmudic treatise,\n called, Avoda Sara, (Vid. eund. edit. ab Edzard. cap. 1. page 65. cum.\n ejusd. annot. page 244, & seq.) And Manasseh Ben-Israel asserts the\n same thing, (Vid. ejusd. de Creat. Probl. 25.) Other writers, among\n them, improve upon this conjecture, and pretend, that as the sun was\n created the fourth day, so the Messiah was to come, after 4000 years,\n by which they appear to be self-condemned. However, as an expedient to\n disembarrass themselves, they all pretend, that Christ\u2019s coming is\n deferred for their sins; which evasion is too weak to ward off the\n evidence which we have for the truth of Christianity. That several of\n the Fathers imbibed this notion, concerning the world\u2019s continuing\n 6000 years, according to the number of the days of the creation, is\n evident. Lactantius begins his Millennium then, and supposes, that the\n thousand years, from thence to the end of time, answers to the seventh\n day or Sabbath of rest. (Vid. Lactant. de Vit. Beat. \u00a7 14.) Augustin,\n who does not give into the Millennium, supposes, that time will end\n with the 6000 years, which answers to the sixth day of the creation;\n and then, according to him, follows an eternal sabbatism, (Vid. Aug.\n de Civ. Dei, Lib. XX. cap. 7.)_\n\nFootnote 244:\n\n \u039a\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1.\n\nFootnote 245:\n\n _See Quest. LXXXVIII.-XC._\n\n\n\n\n Quest. LVII., LVIII., LIX.\n\n\n QUEST. LVII. _What benefits hath Christ procured by his mediation?_\n\n ANSW. Christ, by his mediation, hath procured redemption, with all\n other benefits of the covenant of grace.\n\n QUEST. LVIII. _How do we come to be made partakers of the benefits\n which Christ hath procured?_\n\n ANSW. We are made partakers of the benefits which Christ hath\n procured, by the application of them unto us, which is the work\n especially of God the Holy Ghost.\n\n QUEST. LIX. _Who are made partakers of redemption through Christ?_\n\n ANSW. Redemption is certainly applied and effectually communicated\n to all those for whom Christ hath purchased it, who are, in time, by\n the Holy Ghost, enabled to believe in Christ, according to the\n gospel.\n\nI. In the first of these answers, we have an account of the blessings,\nwhich Christ, as Mediator, has procured for his people, namely,\nredemption, with all the other blessings of the covenant of grace; and\naccordingly we may observe, that the covenant of grace is the foundation\nof all the blessings that we enjoy, or hope for; and, among these,\nredemption is included, which having been before considered, we need\nnot, at present enlarge on it.\n\nAs for those other benefits of the covenant of grace, which are the\nconsequents of our redemption, they differ from it, in that redemption\nis said to be wrought out for us by Christ, in his own Person, whereas\nsome other benefits we enjoy, are, more especially considered as wrought\nin us; and these are particularly mentioned in several following\nanswers; which treat of effectual calling, sanctification, repentance\nunto life, and other graces, which are inherent in us, whereby our\nhearts and actions are changed and conformed to the will of God. And\nthere are other blessings which, more especially, respect our state\nGod-ward; such as justification in which our sins are pardoned, and our\npersons accepted; and adoption, wherein we are made and dealt with as\nGod\u2019s children; and there are several other benefits which follow\nhereupon, whereby the work of grace is carried on, and we enabled to go\non in the ways of God, with spiritual peace and joy in believing, till\nwe come to glory.\n\nII. It is farther observed, that we are made partakers of these benefits\nby the application thereof to us; first, they are purchased, and then\napplied. We are first redeemed by price, and then delivered by the\nalmighty power of God, and the application hereof is said to be more\nespecially the work of the Holy Ghost; whereas the purchase of it only\nbelongs to the Mediator.\n\nIn considering the application of redemption, we may observe, that it is\na divine work, and therefore not to be ascribed to ourselves, but it is\nthe gift of God, Eph. ii. 8. and, as it is a work appropriate to God, so\nit is, in several scriptures, said to be wrought in us by the Holy\nGhost. Accordingly we are said to _be born of the Spirit_, John iii. 5.\nand _saved by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy\nGhost_, Titus iii. 5. upon which account, the Spirit is sometimes called\nthe Spirit of holiness, and power, and he is said to dwell in us; which\nplainly shews that he is eminently glorified in the application of\nredemption.\n\nBut inasmuch as it is said, in one of the answers we are explaining,\nthat this is the work especially of God the Holy Ghost, which is a mode\nof speaking often used by those who treat on this subject; this is to be\nconsidered with great caution; and therefore when we speak of it, as the\nwork especially of God the Holy Ghost, we are not to understand it as\nthough the Father and the Son were not equally concerned therein; for it\nis allowed by all, who have just ideas of the doctrine of the\never-blessed Trinity, that those works, in which any of the divine\nperfections are displayed, belong equally, and alike, to the Father,\nSon, and Holy Ghost;[246] therefore when the application of redemption\nis said, more especially, to belong to the Holy Ghost, we are to\nunderstand nothing else by it, but that this work is peculiarly\nattributed to the Spirit, inasmuch as hereby he demonstrates his\nPersonal glory, in the subserviency of the work performed by him, to the\nglory of the Father, and of Christ the Mediator: but this we shall pass\nover, having insisted on it elsewhere.[247]\n\nIII. We are now to consider redemption as certainly and effectually\napplied to all, for whom it was purchased, together with the character\nof the persons who are interested therein. In this account of the\napplication thereof, there is something supposed, namely, that it is not\napplied to all mankind. This every one will allow; for even they, who\nplead for universal redemption, do not assert the universal application\nof it, or that all mankind shall be eventually saved, as being contrary\nto the whole tenor of scripture; therefore we must conclude, that it is\napplied to none but those for whom Christ has purchased it. This is\nevident, because the design of the purchase thereof was, that they, who\nwere redeemed, might reap the benefit of it. And, in this sense, it is\nfarther observed, that it is _certainly_ and _effectually_ applied to\nthem; from whence it follows, that the application thereof does not\ndepend on the will of man, or on some uncertain conditions, which God\nexpects we shall perform, that so the death of Christ might be rendered\neffectual; for whatever condition can be assigned, as conducive\nhereunto, it is the purchase of Christ\u2019s death; in which respect, the\nSpirit\u2019s applying one saving benefit, must be considered as a condition\nof his applying another; which is not only an improper sense of the word\n_condition_, but it contains several things derogatory to the divine\nglory: but this need not be farther insisted on, since we have had\noccasion to speak of it elsewhere.[248]\n\nThis leads us to consider the character of the persons to whom\nredemption is applied. These are described as such, who are enabled to\nbelieve in Christ, according to the gospel. This is a very extensive\ncharacter belonging to those who are interested in Christ\u2019s redemption,\nas it includes in it all other graces, which accompany or flow from\nsaving faith; and we are not, by nature, disposed to believe in Christ,\nbut are rather averse to it; therefore it is farther said, that we are\n_enabled_ to believe in him, as will be considered under a following\nanswer.[249] And this is said to be done according to the gospel, and it\nnot only discovers to us the object of faith; but contains many\ninvaluable promises of this and other graces, that accompany salvation.\nAnd this grace of faith is farther said to be wrought in time, to\ndenote, that though the purpose relating hereunto was from eternity, and\nthe purchase thereof was made before we had a being, yet the application\nof it is in God\u2019s appointed time, when, after having run great lengths\nin impenitency and unbelief, he is pleased to call us by his grace, and\nthereby bring us into the way of salvation.\n\nFootnote 246:\n\n _Thus divines generally say_, Opera Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa.\n\nFootnote 247:\n\n _See Vol. I. page 291, 292._\n\nFootnote 248:\n\n _See page 185, 187, 322, 324._\n\nFootnote 249:\n\n _See Quest._ lxxii.\n\n\n\n\n Quest. LX.\n\n\n QUEST. LX. _Can they who have never heard the gospel, and so know\n not Jesus Christ, nor believe in him, be saved, by their living\n according to the light of nature?_\n\n ANSW. They who, having never heard the gospel, know not Jesus\n Christ, and believe not in him, cannot be saved, be they never so\n diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, or\n the law of that religion which they profess; neither is there\n salvation in any other, but in Christ alone, who is the Saviour only\n of his body the church.\n\nThis answer is an inference deduced from the foregoing; for, if\nredemption be only applied to those who are enabled to believe in\nChrist, according to the gospel, then it follows, that they who have not\nthe gospel, cannot be made partakers of this privilege; and the general\nscope and design thereof is to assert the necessity of divine\nrevelation, as well as faith in Christ, against those who suppose that\nthe gate of salvation is much wider than our Saviour has determined it\nto be, who says, _Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way which\nleadeth unto life, and few there be that find it_, Matt. vii. 14. I am\nsensible that this doctrine cannot but be disrelished by them, who are\ndisposed to exclude any from a possibility of attaining salvation; and\nare ready to charge those with groundless censoriousness, and want of\nChristian temper, who pass so severe a sentence on so great a part of\nmankind, as are included in it. It is also contrary to the presumptuous\nhope of corrupt nature, which is unwarrantably prone to expect\nsalvation, without faith in Christ. This some defend by arguments, but\nmany more seem to do it by their practice.\n\nThey who maintain the doctrine of universal redemption, design hereby to\nadvance the goodness of God, and are ready to conclude, that it is\ninconsistent with that divine perfection to exclude any from a\npossibility of salvation; and therefore it is not agreeable to their\nmethod of reasoning, to confine the means of grace to so small a number,\nas that of those to whom the gospel is preached; accordingly many of\nthem have asserted, that the Heathen, as well as Christians, are put\ninto a salvable state by the death of Christ, so that they shall be\nsaved if they live according to the dictates of the light of nature,\nthough they know nothing of Christ and the gospel. But, in order to\ntheir maintaining this argument, they have some great difficulties to\nsurmount, inasmuch as, while they attempt to aggrandize the mercy of\nGod, they seem to overthrow the necessity of divine revelation, as well\nas run counter to the sense of many scriptures.\n\nTherefore some who have asserted universal redemption, have not extended\nthe universality of it any farther, than to those who are favoured with\nthe gospel; but either leave it, as a matter which we know nothing of,\nand ought not to enquire into, or else they seem to suggest, that the\ndark traditional knowledge of the gospel, which they suppose, some of\nthe Heathen have had, was sufficient to lead them to a small degree of\nfaith in Christ; or, since that cannot well be defended, others have\nsupposed, that God may lead many of the Heathen into the knowledge of\nChrist, before they go out of the world, by some secret methods, not to\nbe discerned by us. These are not willing, with the Deists, to set aside\nthe necessity of divine revelation; whereas others, who do not suppose\nit necessary to salvation, but only to our farther improvement in the\nway thereunto, and therefore conclude, that Christianity is only a\nbrighter, or clearer way to heaven; these are, more especially, opposed\nin this answer we are explaining.\n\nI am sensible that this subject, we are entering on, has been treated\nwith more reflection and censure than many others; and we are hereby\nsupposed to conclude, that the divine dispensations are too severe, and\nthat that goodness and mercy, which is his nature and delight, is not\nsufficiently advanced and magnified; and that it is a sour and\nill-natured way of reasoning, to suppose that any are put under a\nnecessity of perishing, for want of a divine revelation, and that it\ndoes not become us to pass a damnatory sentence on any, more especially\non so great a part of the world, as that is, who know nothing of Christ,\nand the way of salvation by him. It is necessary for us therefore to\npremise,\n\n1. That we pretend not to pass a judgment concerning the final state of\nparticular persons, by concluding, that they, who are now strangers to\nChrist, and his gospel, shall always remain so; for we know not when, to\nwhom, or by what means, God may reveal Christ, to those who now sit in\ndarkness, and are unacquainted with the way of salvation by him. And as\nfor the possibility of God\u2019s revealing Christ, in a secret way, to those\nwho do not sit under the sound of the gospel, we will not deny it;\nhowever, we cannot infer the certainty of events, from the possibility\nthereof, and therefore we must have a clearer proof hereof, before we\ncan believe it.\n\n2. God might justly have excluded the whole race of mankind from a\npossibility of attaining salvation, as well as the fallen angels; for\nthere was nothing out of himself that moved him to have compassion on\nthose who are the heirs of salvation, any more than others.\n\n3. We are far from supposing that the Heathens shall be condemned for\nnot believing in Christ, whom they never heard of, or not complying with\nthe gospel-overture, which was never made to them. Invincible ignorance,\nthough it be an unhappiness, and a consequence of our fallen state, is\nnot a crime; therefore,\n\n4. The Heathen shall be judged by the law of nature; and, if the\napostle\u2019s words, _As many as have sinned without law, shall perish\nwithout law_, Rom. ii. 12. be applicable to them, which, I think, no one\nwill deny; yet their condemnation cannot be equal to that of those, who\nneglect and despise the great salvation offered to them in the gospel.\n\n5. The Heathen, who have had no other light but that of nature, cannot\nbe exculpated from the charge of many actual sins committed by them; in\nwhich respect they have rebelled against the light they have been\nfavoured with. All of them, indeed, have not contracted the same degree\nof guilt with those whom the apostle describes, who committed sins\ncontrary to nature, _being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication,\ncovetousness, maliciousness, wickedness_, chap. i. 25, 26. _& seq._ and\nmany other sins of the blackest nature, and therefore all of them are\nnot liable to the same condemnation. And, indeed, some of the Heathen\nmoralists have been a blessing, in many respects, to the age in which\nthey lived, who, by their writings and example, have endeavoured to\nreform it from vice and immorality; and it is certain, that they shall\nnot be punished for crimes which they have not committed: but whether\nthe best of them shall be saved by the merits of Christ, though\ndestitute of faith in him, is the question under our present\nconsideration. To conclude that their good works have merited salvation,\nis not only contrary to the analogy of faith, but it is more than what\ncan be said concerning the best works that were ever performed by\nChristians; and to argue, as many do, from the goodness of God, that\nthey shall be saved, is certainly an inconclusive way of reasoning,\nunless we had some intimation of his purpose relating thereunto. If God\nhas determined so to do, we must have recourse to his revealed will, and\nprove, from scripture, that there are promises of eternal life made to\nthose who have no interest in Christ, and some ground, at least, to\nconclude, that some shall be happy in beholding his glory in another\nworld, who have had no communion, by faith, with him in this. These\nthings must first be proved, before we can see reason to deny what is\ncontained in this answer, which we proceed to consider. Accordingly it\nis observed,\n\nI. That they who never heard the gospel, and neither know nor believe in\nChrist, cannot be saved. This supposes, that faith and salvation are\ninseparably connected; and, though it be particularly applied to those\nwho are destitute of the gospel; yet it is levelled against all, who\npresumptuously expect salvation, without ground, who remain in a state\nof unbelief and impenitency, whether they have the means of grace or no.\nAnd here let us consider that many who are called Christians, though\nthey know little more than the bare name of Christ, yet they doubt not\nbut that they shall be saved by his merits, and so live and die in this\nfatal mistake, how vile soever their conversation has been, as the\nprophet Isaiah says, _Thou art wearied in the greatness of thy way; yet\nsaidst thou not, There is no hope_, Isa. lvii. 10. or like the person\nwhom Moses speaks of, who, _when he heareth the words of this curse, yet\nblesseth himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace, though I walk\nin the imagination of mine heart, to add drunkenness to thirst_, Deut.\nxxix. 19. It is too notorious to be denied, that a great part of men\nthough grossly ignorant, and openly profane, who live without God in the\nworld, notwithstanding, expect to be saved; and it is one of Satan\u2019s\ngreat engines, by which he endeavours to banish all religion out of the\nworld, by persuading his deluded subjects that all things shall go well\nwith them, though they make no pretensions to it. This presumption is\nrather founded in stupidity, than supported by arguments, and is a great\ninstance of the alienation of the mind and affections from God, and\nshows how deceitful and desperately wicked, the heart of man is, when\ndestitute of divine grace.\n\nBut what shall we say of those who pretend to defend this, and thereby\nput a sword into the hands of those who adhere to them, to destroy\nthemselves? This the Deists do. And, inasmuch as their method of\nreasoning is subversive of the Christian religion, and of faith in\nChrist, as connected with salvation, I cannot omit to mention it in this\nplace. These pretend not to be Atheists, though they express not a due\nveneration for the divine Majesty, that they may not be excluded from\nthe society of mankind, who have some degree of abhorrence of Atheism\nimpressed on their nature. They talk, indeed of God, and of natural\nreligion, but make revealed the subject of their scorn and ridicule. If\nthey read the scriptures, it is apparently with a design to burlesque\nthem, and charge them with inconsistency and self-contradiction. When\nthey speak of revelation, or the gift of prophecy, they give it no\nbetter a term than _enthusiasm_; and, when they mention the failings,\nrecorded in scripture, of those who were otherwise holy and excellent\nmen, they take occasion maliciously to reproach them, and insinuate,\nthat they were vile persons, guilty of the most enormous crimes, and yet\nwere saved: and wickedly infer from thence, that there is nothing solid\nand substantial in religion, but that persons may be as safe and happy\nwithout it, as with it. If they refer to the brightest and most\nexcellent part of the character of the saints recorded in scripture,\nthis they suppose to be the effect of implicit faith, and to take its\nrise from priest-craft. And our Saviour himself is not only divested by\nthem of his glory, but reckoned, as, they suppose, Moses was of old, a\ndesigning person, who brought a new set of notions into the world to\namuse and confound it. As for his miracles, which none but the blinded\nJews, and they who are equally prejudiced against Christianity, never\npretended to contest, much less to vilify, these they treat with the\nutmost scorn and contempt, as a late writer has done, whose blasphemy\nhas been made manifest, by those who have wrote in defence of this part\nof our religion.\n\nBut inasmuch as persons, who are not disposed to indulge so great a\ndegree of profaneness, have been sensible that this is not a right\nmethod to extirpate Christianity, since it cannot but be treated with\nthe utmost abhorrence, by those who read the scripture with any\nreligious design; there are others who, though they speak of God, yet\nglorify him not as God. These will, indeed, allow him to have some\ndivine perfections; but they cast a reproach on his providence, and\nsuppose, that he is too great to be affected with, or concerned about\nthe actions and behaviour of so mean a creature as man. And as what we\ncall sin, can be no disparagement to his glory, so he is too good and\npitiful to his creatures, to punish them, at least, with eternal\ntorments for it; so that if they allow the soul to be immortal, and\ncapable of happiness in another world, which all of them, without\nexception, do not; yet they suppose that God made no creature to be for\never miserable. And as for those laws which he has given to mankind,\nwhich are enstamped on their nature, and contain nothing but what might\nhave been known without revelation, these they pretend to be designed\nonly to keep the world in order, to promote the interest of civil\nsociety, to prevent men from murdering one another, disturbing the\ntranquillity of the government in which they live, or invading the\nproperty of others; which is not doing as they would have others do to\nthem. And as for the punishment of sin; that is no farther to be\nregarded, than as vice and immorality render persons obnoxious to bodily\ndiseases, some marks of infamy, which custom has annexed thereunto, or\nthe lash of human laws. This is all the scheme of religion, that some\namong the Deists endeavour to propagate; and every thing that is built\nmore immediately upon divine revelation, they not only reckon\nunnecessary, but enthusiastic, and no other than a contrivance of some,\nwho, with a view to their own interest, endeavour to puzzle the world\nwith mysterious doctrines, which neither they, nor their votaries\nunderstand.\n\nIt must be supposed, that these men do not think that the knowledge of\nChrist, or faith in him, is necessary to salvation; yet they doubt not\nbut that it shall go well with them in another world, if there be a\nfuture state, which, through the influence of that scepticism, which is,\nfor the most part, a concomitant of Deism, they sometimes question. We\nshall not make so great a digression from our present subject as to give\na particular reply to these assertions, which, though propagated with\nmuch assurance, are not pretended to be defended by solid arguments;\nand, indeed, the whole gospel is a reply to it. Whatever doctrine\nthereof is maintained by Christians, it will have a tendency to give\nthem an abhorrence of it, and confirm their faith against such attempts,\nas are used to stagger and pervert it.\n\nThus concerning the methods that are used, by some, to overthrow\nrevealed religion, and the necessity of faith in Christ to salvation. We\nshall now proceed to consider on what grounds persons hope to be saved,\nwithout the knowledge of Christ, or faith in him. And,\n\n1. Some have no other ground of hope but the goodness of the divine\nnature; and accordingly they think, that because God delights not in the\nmisery of any of his creatures, but takes all occasions to make himself\nknown, as a God of infinite kindness and compassion, whose thoughts are\nnot as our thoughts, nor his ways as our ways, and will not resent those\ninjuries which we may offer to him, but will lay them under eternal\nobligations to him, who have, by their sins rendered themselves unworthy\nto be saved by him; therefore they hope that all things shall go well\nwith them, though they are utter strangers to the way of salvation by a\nRedeemer, and are altogether destitute of faith in him.\n\nBut this we cannot call any other than a presumptuous confidence; it is\nnothing else but to abuse the riches of God\u2019s goodness, and to claim an\ninterest in it, without ground. It is, indeed, a very great truth that\nGod delights in mercy; and that this attribute cannot be too much\nadmired or advanced by us; but yet it must not be set in opposition to\nany of his other perfections. He is certainly a just and holy, as well\nas a merciful God; and therefore we are not to suppose that one of these\nperfections shall be glorified, to the dishonour of another. Might not\nfallen angels as well make use of the same argument, and say, that\nbecause God is merciful, therefore he will deliver them from those\nchains of darkness and misery, in which they are held; as that the mercy\nof God should be presumed to be a foundation of hope, to those who have\nno ground to conclude their interest in it, as expecting it another way,\nthan that in which he has declared his will to glorify it? And it is\ncertain, that whomsoever God designs to glorify his mercy in saving, he\nfirst determines to advance the glory thereof, in making them meet for\nsalvation, by sanctifying or purifying their hearts by faith. To\nseparate these two, is therefore a dishonour to the divine perfections:\nGod never designed to save his people in sin, but first to save them\nfrom it, and then to crown the work, which he had begun, with complete\nblessedness. Therefore the man who lives in all excess of riot, and yet\nhopes for salvation, must be guilty of a groundless presumption. When we\nread, in scripture, of God\u2019s extending mercy, we find that there are\ncertain marks and characters annexed, of those persons who have ground\nto lay claim to an interest in it: thus it is said, _The Lord is\nmerciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy_, Psal.\nciii. 8. but then it is added, that this _mercy is from everlasting to\neverlasting upon them that fear him; to such as keep his covenant, and\nto those that remember his commandments to do them_, ver. 17, 18. and\nelsewhere the Psalmist admires the goodness of God, (which is,\ndoubtless, beyond expression wonderful) when he says, _O how great is\nthy goodness, which thou hast laid up, and wrought_, in which he speaks\nof the present displays of goodness, and the future reserves thereof;\nbut it follows, that this belongs only _to them that fear him_, and _to\nthem that trust in him before the sons of men_, Psal. xxxi. 19. and\nelsewhere it is said, _All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth,\nunto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies_, Psal. xxv. 10. that\nis, to them, exclusively of all others.\n\nMoreover, we never read of God\u2019s glorifying his mercy but in Christ;\nfirst, in bringing sinners nigh to him, by his blood, and then in\napplying redemption purchased by his Spirit: thus the apostle says, _God\nwas in Christ reconciling the world unto himself_, 2 Cor. v. 19. and\nthen he adds, as an expedient to give sinners a ground of hope, that\nthey have an interest in this privilege, that, in the gospel, he sends\nan embassy to them, to beseech them, as they value their own souls, to\nbe reconciled to God, by complying with the gospel-overture, and\nrepeating of, and desisting from their rebellion against him. And, when\nhe is represented as _the Father of mercies, and the God of all\ncomfort_, he is, at the same time, styled, _the God and Father of our\nLord Jesus Christ_, chap. i. 3. to denote, that this mercy is displayed\nin and through a Mediator; and therefore our hope of attaining it, must\nbe founded in our interest in him, which cannot be considered otherwise,\nthan as including in it the grace of faith. Are they, who have a right\nto expect salvation, _called heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ_?\nRom. viii. 17. They are farther described, as _conformed to his image_,\nver. 29. Have they a right to the _inheritance of the saints in light_?\nthey are characterized as made _meet for it_, Colos. i. 12. and when the\napostle exhorts persons to _look for the mercy of God unto eternal\nlife_, he intimates that this would be a presumptuous expectation, were\nit separate from their _keeping themselves in the love of God_, Jude,\nver. 21.\n\n2. Others have no foundation for their expectation of salvation, but by\nextenuating sin; and are hardly persuaded to confess themselves to be\nsinners, how vile soever their conversation be: thus it is said,\nconcerning Ephraim, _The balances of deceit are in his hand, he loveth\nto oppress_; yet he refused to acknowledge this, and says, _In all my\nlabours they shall find none iniquity in me, that were sin_, Hos. xii.\n7, 8. and, when the prophet Jeremiah exhibits a charge against a\ndegenerate age, and tells them, _Thou hast taught the wicked ones thy\nways, also in thy skirts is found the blood of poor innocents_; what\nabominable stupidity were they guilty of, when they reply to this,\n_Because I am innocent, surely his anger shall turn from me_, Jer. ii.\n33-35.\n\nSometimes they build their hope of salvation, though they cannot\nexculpate themselves from the charge of sin, on the bare supposition,\nthat some others are greater sinners than themselves: thus the Pharisee\npleases himself, that he was not guilty of some notorious sins: that he\nwas no _extortioner_, or _adulterer_, nor _even as the Publican_, whom\nhe looks upon with great contempt, Luke xviii. 11. or if they are forced\nto conclude themselves to be among the number of the vilest and most\nnotorious sinners, yet they presume that God will not punish them\neternally for this, but will make some allowance for the propensity of\nhuman nature to sin, or the force of those temptations, which they have\nnot been able to withstand; or, if they are liable to any extraordinary\nafflictions in this life, they suppose that these are sufficient to\ncompensate for all the sins that they have committed, and therefore\ntheir miseries shall not be extended beyond it; so that, that which lies\nat the root of this presumptuous hope, is a secret denial of the\ninfinite demerit of sin, or that it deserves eternal punishment. Now,\nthat we may shew the vanity of that expectation, which has no other\nfoundation than this, let us consider,\n\n(1.) That to extenuate sin, is an argument that persons are unacquainted\nwith themselves, know not the plague of their own hearts; and therefore\nit is the most destructive fallacy that men can put on themselves; and\nit is a sad token that they are given up to judicial blindness: but,\nwhen God shall charge sin on the conscience, or, as the Psalmist speaks,\n_reprove them_, and _set their iniquities in order before their eyes_,\nPsal. l. 21. which he will do, at one time or other, they shall appear\nto have been self-deceived, and the ground of their hope of salvation,\nsink under them.\n\n(2.) To suppose that sin does not deserve eternal punishment, is an\naffront to the holiness of God and a disbelief of those threatenings\nwhich are denounced against it. It is, in effect, to deny that sin is\nobjectively infinite, which cannot be done, without denying, in effect,\nthat God is a God of infinite perfection; it is a flying in the face of\nhis justice, and charging him with mal-administration; to such it may be\nsaid, as Elihu says to Job, _Wilt thou condemn him that is most just?_\nJob xxxiv. 17. or, as God speaks, to reprove and humble him, _Wilt thou\nalso disannul my judgment? Wilt thou condemn me that thou mayest be\nrighteous?_ chap. xl. 8. But since the eternity of the punishment of sin\nis particularly insisted on, under a following answer,[250] we shall add\nno more on that head at present; only let it be considered, that this\nmethod of reasoning has a tendency to banish all religion out of the\nworld; and it is never made use of, but by those who make no pretensions\nto it.\n\n3. If it be reckoned preposterous for any one to found his hope of\nsalvation on the extenuating of his sins, others have a more plausible\npretence, when they expect to be saved, because they perform some works\nthat are materially good, though these are not only destitute of the\ngrace of faith, but strangers to the way of salvation by Jesus Christ.\nIf they perform some moral duties, or abstain from some gross\nenormities, much more if they have a form of godliness, and are reckoned\nto be religious persons by the world, and, in many instances, are useful\nto those with whom they converse, they are ready to conclude, that they\ndo, as it were, merit eternal life thereby, and God, for this, becomes a\ndebtor to them; the former sort above-mentioned have too light thoughts\nof sin; these set too great a value on their duties, which is contrary\nto what our Saviour says, _When ye shall have done all those things\nwhich are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants_, Luke xvii.\n10. I would not have it thought that hereby I design to depreciate any\nmoral duties, or virtues, which have in them a degree or excellency, in\nproportion to their nature: but the only thing that I intend hereby is,\nthat good works which do not proceed from a right principle, and are not\nperformed for right ends, if there be not an internal principle of grace\nimplanted in regeneration, nor faith in Christ, as the main spring\nthereof, or, if they be put in the room of Christ\u2019s righteousness, and\nso made the foundation of our justification, or right to eternal life,\nthey are not accepted by God; and that hope of salvation, which is\nfounded thereon, is vain, and unwarrantable.\n\n4. There are others, who, as it is expressed in this answer, frame their\nlives according to the light of nature, or the law of that religion\nwhich they profess, and doubt not, but in so doing, they shall be saved.\nThis presumption is defended by many, who call themselves Christians,\nwho suppose, that a person may be saved in any religion, whether true or\nfalse: these do not stick to say, that, if they lived at Rome, they\nwould embrace the Popish doctrines; or, if in Turkey, they would profess\nthe Mahometan faith; or, had they been born in India, among the Pagans,\nthey should have ground to conclude that they are in a safe way to\nheaven. This opinion certainly reflects dishonour on the Christian name;\nand it savours so much of scepticism, that these must be supposed to\nconclude, that there is nothing certain in religion; or, as to the\ndifferent modes thereof, that these are only a political engine, a mere\nhuman invention, which stands upon no other basis, but tradition, and\nhas nothing else to propagate it, but implicit faith. This is the notion\nwhich they, who set themselves against divine revelation, entertain\nconcerning religion in general; or, if there be any thing in it that\nescapes their reproach and censure, it is only such maxims as are\nfounded in the laws of nature, _viz._ that we ought to do to others as\nwe would have them do to us, govern our passions, that they may not be\noutrageous, and disturb not only our own peace, but that of all civil\nsocieties; and that we must not offer injuries, or violence, to those\nwhom we converse with; but rather be gentle, good-humoured, kind, and\ncompassionate to them, and abstain from those enormities, which are\nabhorrent to nature. This they suppose to be sufficient to denominate\nany one a good man, who need not entertain any doubt of his own\nsalvation: but this is to set aside all revelation, and disbelieve the\ndemonstrative evidence which we have of the truth of the Christian\nreligion, and it is to cast contempt on that, as unnecessary, which has\nin it the greatest excellency. It also contains a denial of that which\nis experienced by all true believers, namely, that revealed religion has\nthe greatest tendency to dispose them to glorify God, and to do good to\nmen; these sensibly find, that they have the greatest comfort, and most\nsolid ground of hope, in a firm adherence thereunto: and laying all the\nstress of their salvation on what is revealed in the gospel; and\ndesiring to adhere stedfastly, by faith, to Christ, as the only way of\nsalvation.\n\nII. It is farther observed, in this answer, that there is salvation in\nno other but in Christ. The scripture is very full and express to this\npurpose; Thus it is said, _Neither is there salvation in any other; for\nthere is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must\nbe saved_, Acts iv. 12. and elsewhere the apostle says, _Other\nfoundation can no man lay, than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ_, 1\nCor. iii. 11. On him the church is built; he is the only Mediator\nbetween God and man, the only Redeemer, who purchased salvation for\nthose who shall be made partakers of it: He laid the foundation-stone of\nthis glorious fabric, and therefore we must conclude, that the carrying\non of this work belongs to him, till the top-stone is laid, and the work\nbrought to perfection; upon which account he is styled, _The Author and\nFinisher of faith_, Heb. xii. 3. Accordingly we may observe,\n\n1. That faith, and all other graces that accompany salvation, have a\npeculiar reference to Christ: Thus we are said to _obtain precious faith\nthrough his righteousness_, 2 Pet. i. 1. and he is said to _dwell in the\nhearts_ of his people _by faith_, Eph. iii. 17, and _to increase their\nfaith_, Luke xvii. 5. and he is also the Object of faith, as he says,\n_Ye believe in God; believe also in me_, John xiv. 1. and this grace is\nfrequently described as _a coming to him_, chap. vi. 35. and it is such\na coming as implies more than an attendance on his ordinances; for it is\nconnected with salvation, which is the meaning of that metaphorical\nexpression, in which it is said, that such _shall never hunger nor\nthirst_; by which we are to understand that all their desires shall be\nfulfilled, and they shall be satisfied with that perfect blessedness,\nwhich he will make them partakers of. Besides, it is such a coming to\nChrist, as is the effect of God\u2019s almighty power; therefore he says, _No\nman can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him_, ver.\n44.\n\nThis will farther appear, if we consider that salvation is founded on\nChrist\u2019s executing his three offices of Priest, Prophet, and King. The\nfirst of these he executes in our behalf; not in us, but for us, whereby\nfaith, and all other graces, are purchased; whereas, in the execution of\nhis other two offices, namely, his Prophetical and Kingly, especially\nwhen it is rendered effectual to salvation, his people are the subjects\nin whom they are executed; the work performed is internal, and the\nconsequence of it is the soul\u2019s giving that glory to him, that is the\nresult thereof; and this cannot be done, without our knowing him to be a\nMediator, and, as such, ordained and qualified to execute them. This\ncannot be known without divine revelation.\n\nMoreover, this is evident, from the apostle\u2019s method of reasoning, in\nwhich he considers our _calling on the name of the Lord_ as inseparably\nconnected with salvation, and necessary thereunto, and that this\nproceeds from faith; for, says he, _How shall they call on him, in whom\nthey have not believed?_ Rom. x. 14. And this faith supposes the\npreaching of the gospel, which gospel is represented, in many\nscriptures, as a display of the glory of Christ; therefore it follows,\nthat there is no salvation without divine revelation; or that they, who\nnever heard of Christ, and consequently never believed in him, have no\nright or claim to it.\n\nWe might also observe the account which the same apostle gives of that\nworship, which is necessary to salvation, when he says, _Through him we\nhave access, by one Spirit, unto the Father_, Eph. ii. 18. To have\naccess to God, is certainly necessary to salvation; and this is by a\nMediator, which is elsewhere called, _Coming to God by him_: But this\ncannot be done without the knowledge of him, as the way to the Father,\nand that faith in him, which is founded thereon. Moreover, salvation is\nto be considered as a promised blessing, founded in the covenant of\ngrace, and therefore they, who are strangers to this covenant, have no\nright to lay claim to the promises thereof, which are no where contained\nbut in divine revelation, and accordingly they are said to be _yea and\namen in Christ, to the glory of God_, 2 Cor. i. 20. Therefore, what hope\ncan there be of obtaining these promised blessings, without the\nknowledge of Christ?\n\n2. It farther appears, that there is no salvation without faith in\nChrist, as founded in divine revelation, inasmuch as there is no\njustification without it. Justification is inseparably connected with\nsalvation by the apostle, when he says, _Whom he justified, them he also\nglorified_, Rom. viii. 30. To separate these two, is to suppose, that a\nperson may expect salvation, without being delivered from the guilt of\nsin, and the condemning sentence of the law; or to have a right to\neternal life, without being able to plead any righteousness that is\nworthy of God\u2019s acceptance, which is certainly to build our hope on a\nsandy foundation, and is contrary to those scriptures that set forth the\nimpossibility of our being justified by the works of the law, or the\nnecessity of faith in Christ\u2019s righteousness, in order to our claiming\nthis privilege. This the apostle Paul frequently inculcates; therefore\nit follows, that no one can plead any thing done by him, as the matter\nof his justification, though he could say, as that apostle did,\n_touching the righteousness that is in the law, I am blameless_, Phil.\niii. 6. and elsewhere he says, _Though I know nothing by myself, yet I\nam not hereby justified_, 1 Cor. iv. 4. If the best saint in the world\nmust have something, to support his expectation of being discharged from\ncondemnation, that is infinitely more valuable than any act of his own\nobedience; then certainly that obedience, which is performed, according\nto the dictates of the light of nature, without divine revelation, is\nfar from being a sufficient foundation to support a person\u2019s hope of\njustification and salvation: But such who are destitute of the gospel,\nhave nothing else to plead; therefore we must conclude, as it is\nexpressed in this answer, that they, who never heard the gospel, and\nbelieve not in Christ, cannot be saved.\n\n3. This may be also inferred, from those scriptures that set forth the\npernicious consequence of unbelief, as it is said, _He that believes not\nis condemned already_, and _shall not see life, but the wrath of God\nabideth on him_, John iii. 18, 36. and elsewhere, _If ye believe not\nthat I am he, ye shall die in your sins_, chap. viii. 24. And inasmuch\nas faith is founded on divine revelation, there are other scriptures\nthat represent those who are destitute of it, as being in an hopeless\nstate: thus the apostle tells the church at Ephesus, that _when they\nwere Gentiles_, and consequently strangers to the gospel, _they had no\nhope, being without God in the world_, Eph. ii. 12. so that, whatever\nknowledge they had of a God by the light of nature, or whatever\nblessings they received from common providence, they had not such a\nknowledge of him, nor such an interest in him, as gave them hope of\nsalvation. The apostle does not speak of them as being in an hopeless\nstate, because their conversation had been more vile than that of other\nGentiles, as acting contrary to the dictates of the law of nature; but\nhe speaks of them as Gentiles, that is, without the light of divine\nrevelation; and therefore what he says, concerning them is applicable to\nall the Heathen, as such.[251]\n\nAgain, it is farther observed, in scripture, that, before Christ was\npreached to the Gentiles, they were not the objects of his special care\nand goodness, but, in this respect, neglected by him; accordingly it is\nsaid, that, _in times past he suffered all nations to walk in their own\nways_, Acts xiv. 16. and elsewhere these are called, _Times of\nignorance, which_, it is said, _God winked at_, chap. xvii. 30. as it is\nin our translation: but this is not so agreeable to the sense of the\nGreek word,[252] as if we rendered it, during the times of this\nignorance, God having overlooked them, that is, the Gentiles, _hath now\ncommanded all men every where to repent_; and, if they were disregarded\nby him, they could not be supposed to be the objects of his special\ngrace, or to have a right and title to salvation.\n\nMoreover, the apostle Paul, when speaking of some among the Heathen, who\nexcelled others in wisdom; notwithstanding being destitute of gospel\nlight, he casts the utmost contempt on those attainments in the\nknowledge of divine things, which they gloried in, as being insufficient\nto salvation; and therefore he says, that whatever they knew of the\nperfections of the divine nature, so far as they may be known without\ndivine revelation, yet _by wisdom they knew not God_; and therefore he\nsays, _Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of\nthis world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?_ 1 Cor.\ni. 20.\n\n_Object. 1._ It is objected, that it is contrary to the goodness of God\nto condemn persons for invincible ignorance, as that of the Heathen must\nbe supposed to be, since it was impossible for them to know the way of\nsalvation by a Redeemer.\n\n_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that we must distinguish between\nGod\u2019s condemning persons for not knowing the gospel, which is to condemn\nthem for invincible ignorance, and his not giving the gospel to a\ngreater part of the world, (as a necessary means of grace and salvation)\nwhom he designed, as we before observed, to overlook, and suffer to walk\nin their own way. If the goodness of God had laid a natural obligation\non him, without an act of his sovereign will, to bestow the means of\ngrace, or the knowledge of the way of salvation on them, then it would\nhave been contrary to his divine perfections to have denied the gospel\nto any, and so to condemn them who are ignorant thereof. It is one thing\nfor God to leave them in their fallen state, the result whereof would be\ntheir not knowing the way of salvation; and another thing for him to\ncondemn them for this, as though there were no other reason obliging him\nto inflict this righteous judgment on them.\n\n_Object. 2._ It is farther objected, that the apostle says, in Rom. i.\n19. _That which may be known of God, is manifest in them; for God hath\nshewn it unto them_; and, in chap. ii. 14, 15. _When the Gentiles which\nhave not the law_, that is, any other law than that of nature, _do, by\nnature the things contained in the law; these having not the law, are a\nlaw unto themselves; which shew the work of the law written in their\nhearts, their consciences also bearing them witness, and their thoughts\nthe mean while accusing or else excusing one another_. From hence it is\nargued, that the Gentiles have sufficient knowledge of the divine law,\nto bring them into a state of salvation; their consciences are said to\n_excuse them_, that is, not to charge guilt upon them; therefore they\nare justified by walking according to the dictates of the light of\nnature.\n\n_Answ. 1._ As to what the apostle said, in the former of these\nscriptures, that _that which may be known of God, is manifest in them,\nor shewed to them_; he does not speak of those things which are to be\nknown of God, that have an immediate reference to salvation; nor does he\nsay, that every thing necessary to be known of him, in order thereunto,\nis manifest in them; but, _that of God which is known by them_,[253] is\nfrom him as the God of nature, _he has shewn it to them_, that is, he\nhas given them sufficient light to discover his _eternal power and\nGodhead_, in a way of reasoning _from the things that are made_, as he\nadds, in the following words; but the eternal power and Godhead may be\nknown by those who are destitute of that knowledge, which is necessary\nto salvation.\n\n2. As to the other scripture, mentioned in the objection, in which _the\nGentiles_ are said _to do by nature the things contained in the law_; he\ndoes not infer from thence that they are the servants of God, or willing\nsubjects to his government, or, indeed, that they fulfil the law of\nnature; and therefore we cannot suppose that he concludes them justified\nthereby, which is contrary to the whole tenor of the apostle\u2019s doctrine,\nin other parts of his writings. It is true, he says, that _their\nconsciences_ sometimes _excuse_, as well as, at other times, _accuse\nthem_; yet it must be considered, that conscience may excuse, or plead\nnot guilty, with respect to the charge of some crimes, which are\ncommitted by others, when, at the same time, this does not exempt them\nfrom the guilt of sin in general, or give them a right and title to\neternal life. The apostle therefore designs only to shew how far the\ncorruption of men may be restrained, by their attending to the dictates\nof the light of nature, whereby a great deal of sin and guilt might be\nprevented; but he does not determine that God has any farther design of\ngrace toward them; for, if he had, he would have given them the means of\nsalvation; and if he has not said that he will save them, without giving\nthem these means, we have no ground to assert that he will; for this is\nto conclude, without sufficient evidence from scripture.\n\n_Object. 3._ It is said, in Rom. ii. 4. that _the goodness of God\nleadeth to repentance_; but repentance is certainly connected with\nsalvation; therefore the goodness, or bounty of God, which persons, who\nhave no other right but that of nature, have some knowledge of, may lead\nthem to salvation.\n\n_Answ._ It is evident that the apostle, in this scripture, does not\nspeak to the Gentiles, but to the Jews; for, having considered the vile\nabominations which were practised by the Gentiles, in the foregoing\nchapter, in this he reproves the Jews, when he says, in ver. 1. _Thou\nart inexcusable, O man, that judgest, and yet dost the same things_;\nand, in ver. 17. _Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law,\nand makest thy boast of God_; therefore, if the apostle is speaking to\nthem, when he says, _The goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance_, we\nare not only to understand hereby the bounty of common providence, or\nthose effects of the divine goodness, which are known and experienced by\nthe whole world; but the goodness of God, which they had experienced,\nwho were the peculiar objects thereof, and favoured by him, above all\nthe rest of the world, _to whom pertained the adoption, the glory, the\ncovenants, and the giving the law, and the service of God, and the\npromises_ as we read, in chap. ix. 4. therefore certainly they were\nhighly to blame, that they were not hereby led to repentance.\n\n_Object. 4._ It is farther objected, that the apostle, in disputing with\nthe Athenians, in Acts xvii. 27. put them upon _seeking after God, if\nhaply they might feel after him, and find him_; whereas, if it were\nimpossible to find God, that is, the way of acceptance in his sight, by\nthe light of nature, it would have been a preposterous thing for the\napostle to have put them upon seeking him; therefore it follows, that\nthey are not destitute of all means of grace, or without a possibility\nof salvation.\n\n_Answ._ To this it maybe replied, that, if by _seeking the Lord_, the\napostle means enquiring into the way of salvation by a Redeemer, and\npressing after faith in him; as it is said, _Seek and ye shall find;\nknock, and it shall be opened unto you_, Matt. vii. 7. and, _If thou\nseek him, he will be found of thee_, 1 Chron. xxviii. 9. this does not\nargue, that the Heathen, before the gospel was preached to them, in\nseeking, might find the way of salvation: For,\n\n1. Though he be speaking to the Heathen, yet they are considered, at\nthis time, as having the gospel preached to them by him, and therefore\nnot destitute of the external means of grace, which he advises them to\nattend to, in hope that their endeavours might be succeeded.\n\n2. If, on the other hand, he speaks to them without regard to the\nprivilege they then enjoyed, and so inform them what they might attain\nto, without divine revelation, which is the only sense that seems, in\nthe least, to favour the objection; then, by _seeking the Lord_, we must\nunderstand their enquiring into the divine perfections, so far as the\nknowledge thereof is attainable by the light of nature; and the\nconsequence of it would be their attaining such a degree thereof, as\nwould discover the absurdity of that idolatry that they were guilty of,\nwhich the apostle is arguing against. And we may observe, that he makes\nuse of such a mode of speaking, as is very agreeable to this sense of\nthe text, when he says, _If haply ye might feel after him_; which is a\nmetaphor, taken from those who are endeavouring to find their way in the\ndark, in which they feel after things which they cannot see, and\nsometimes they find them. And, when he concludes, that _haply_, or,\nperadventure, _you may find him_, this implies, that though the Heathen,\nby the light of nature, had some means of attaining such a measure of\nknowledge, as would have given them a full conviction that there was but\none God, and that this God ought to be worshipped in a way agreeable to\nhis divine perfections, and consequently that they ought not to think\nthat the _God-head was like to gold or silver, or stone, graven by art\nand man\u2019s device_, which would have effectually confuted that gross\nidolatry, which they were charged with; yet some did not attend to the\nlight of nature, so far as this amounts to, which was the case of those\nwhom he was disputing with; and therefore his design is to reprove their\nidolatry, and persuade them to seek after that knowledge of God, which\nwould have induced them to forsake it; so, that, in that part of his\nargument, he does not seem to proceed any farther than this; and\ntherefore, when, in another part of it, he treats of that knowledge of\nGod, which is more immediately connected with salvation, he speaks of\n_Jesus and the resurrection_, though they treated it with ridicule and\ncontempt; therefore it does not follow, that the Heathen, by the light\nof nature, had a sufficient discovery of the way of salvation.\n\n_Object. 5._ There is another objection against the doctrine we are\nmaintaining, taken from some instances of those who are supposed to have\nbeen destitute of divine revelation, as living without the pale of the\nchurch, and yet recommended in scripture, as men excelling many others\nin grace, concerning whom there is no reason to doubt, but that they\nwere in a state of salvation; such as Melchisedeck, Job, and his\nfriends, with whom the dispute was held, mentioned in the book of Job;\nand, in the New Testament, the Centurion concerning whom our Saviour\nsays, _Verily, I have not found so great faith, no not in Israel_, Matt.\nviii. 10. and Cornelius, whom we read of in the Acts of the Apostles;\nthese were all supposed to be in a state of salvation, and yet reckoned\namong the Heathen.\n\n_Answ. 1._ As to Melchisedeck, we have, under a foregoing answer[254],\ngiven our sentiments who he was, which, if what was there observed be\ntrue, will render this objection of no force: but, inasmuch as it is\nfounded on the commonly-received opinion, namely: that he was a priest\nand a king in the land of Canaan, we may add, that this will make very\nlittle to their purpose; for, it is certain, he was not an idolater, or\na stranger to revealed religion; and therefore it cannot be argued, from\nhence, that they, who are so, may be in a state of salvation.\n\n2. As for Job, and his friends, mentioned in that book which goes under\nhis name, it is certain, that they were well acquainted with the\nrevealed will of God, as appears from the subject-matter of that book;\nand to say, that they were out of the pale of the church, as they did\nnot descend from that branch of Abraham\u2019s family, from which the\nIsraelites came, this will not do much service to their argument, unless\nit could be proved that they were strangers to the faith, and way of\nsalvation, that was professed by the church. We have, under a foregoing\nanswer[255], considered them, as living before the scriptures were\ncommitted to writing, and also before the distinction between the Jew\nand Gentile was much known in the world, or, at least, before the true\nworshippers of God had universally apostatized to idolatry; and\ntherefore, though many other nations were idolaters, and, probably, some\nwere so in the country where they lived, yet it does not appear that\nthey were so; therefore this cannot be brought, as an argument, to\nprove, that such who are destitute of the knowledge of the true God, as\nfounded on divine revelation, may be in the way of salvation.\n\n3. As for the centurion, though he was a Roman officer, it does not\nfollow, from hence, that when he came to our Saviour, and expressed his\ngreat faith and humility, that he was an heathen; for he had seen or\nheard of Christ\u2019s miracles, and his doctrine, and probably, might be\nconvinced thereby, and disposed to believe in him from that conviction;\nand, it is certain, his words do not argue him to be an heathen;\ntherefore this part of the objection is foreign to the design for which\nit is brought.\n\n4. As for Cornelius, it is true, there are many things extraordinary in\nhis character, _viz._ that he was _a devout man, and one that feared\nGod; who gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always_, Acts\nx. 2. and it is farther said, concerning him, that his _prayers_ and his\n_alms came up for a memorial before God_; all which expressions seem to\nfavour the objection. Notwithstanding it may be replied to it,\n\n(1.) If this account, concerning him, give ground to conclude that he\nwas in a state of salvation before Peter was sent to preach the gospel\nto him, which the learned Beza[256], and others, suppose: nevertheless,\nit must be proved, that he was altogether a stranger to divine\nrevelation, and the account we have of the way of salvation, therein, or\nelse the argument, taken from thence, in opposition to what we are\nmaintaining, is of no force. It is true, it is said, that _he fell down\nat Peter\u2019s feet, and worshipped him_, ver. 25. which seems to argue him\nto be no better than an heathen idolater at that time: but they who\nconclude him to have been, at the same time, in a state of salvation,\nreckon this nothing else, but an instance of extraordinary civil\nrespect, which, because it had the appearance of religious worship,\nPeter, as it is intimated in the following words, refused to receive it,\nlest some present should conclude that he gave him that honour, which\nbelongs to God alone.\n\nAll that I shall say, in answer to the objection, as supposing him to be\nin a state of salvation, is, that though he was a Roman, and bred up in\ntheir religion, yet it appears, from his general character that he was\nvery much concerned about the salvation of his soul, and therefore,\ndoubtless, he had not been wanting in his enquiries about the way to\nattain it. As for the gospel, that had not been publicly preached, at\nthat time, to the Gentiles, and he had not had any opportunity to\nconverse with the apostles, or to sit under their ministry, before this;\nbut his conversation had been principally among the Jews, from whom he\nmight be informed, that though they did not believe our Saviour, who was\ncrucified, to be the Messiah: yet the Messiah was expected; and, when he\ncame, he would do that for his people, which was foretold by the\nprophets. Here his faith rested, and he wanted only a convincing\nevidence that our Saviour was he; and this Peter was sent to communicate\nto him.\n\n(2.) If we should suppose him not to have been converted before Peter\nwas sent to him, which seems more probable, because, in Peter\u2019s relation\nof this matter to the apostles, he adds a particular circumstance that\nimplies as much, in chap. xi. 14. namely, that he _should tell him\nwords, whereby he and all his house, should be saved_; it plainly\nargues, that, before this, they were not in a state of salvation; and,\nif so, then the objection, which supposes that he was, is sufficiently\nanswered: but, if we acquiesce in this answer to it, there is one\ndifficulty that remains to be accounted for, _viz._ how this is\nconsistent with his character, as a devout man, fearing God, and his\nprayers and his alms being accepted by him?\n\nThe only reply I shall give to this, is, that some duties may be\nperformed that are materially good, by those who are not in a state of\nsalvation; and that these works may, as far as they have any\ncircumstance of goodness in them, come up for a memorial before God:\nthus God owned the humiliation, repentance, and reformation of the\nNinevites; and it is said, that when one came to our Saviour, and told\nhim how he had observed the commandments of God, and, at the same time,\nexpressed an earnest desire to inherit eternal life; it is remarked on\nthis occasion, that though he would not part with all for Christ, and\ntherefore was not to be reckoned a believer; yet _Jesus, beholding him,\nloved him_, Mark x. 21. that is, he approved of what was good in him,\nthough it wanted some circumstances that were necessary to denominate an\naction good in all respects. Therefore, why, may we not suppose that God\napproved of what was excellent in Cornelius\u2019s character, before he was\nconverted by Peter\u2019s preaching?\n\n_Object. 6._ It is farther objected, that the heathen had some means of\nsalvation, which took their first rise from divine revelation, as\nappears from several rules and modes of worship, which they had, by\ntradition from the Jews. It was a generally received opinion among them,\nthat the sins they committed, were, some way or other, to be expiated,\nor some atonement was to be made for them; upon which account they\noffered sacrifices, and, in order thereunto, had their temples, altars,\nand priests, consecrated for that purpose; which is something more than\nthey had learnt from the law of nature.\n\n_Answ._ This argument has very little weight in it; it is true, it seems\nto allow that there is a necessity of persons being, at least, in a\nsmall degree, apprised of some doctrines, which first took their rise\nfrom divine revelation: but that which was transmitted to the church,\npure and uncorrupt, was handed down to several nations by uncertain\ntradition, with a great mixture of corruption; so that it is hard to\nfind such a resemblance between them, as would denominate them of divine\noriginal. But suppose they had a conviction that sin was to be expiated\nby sacrifice; yet they had no manner of idea concerning the reference,\nof those sacrifices they offered, to Christ, which, as the apostle\nobserves, was the only thing, in those sacrifices that were performed by\na divine warrant, which had a tendency to _take away sin_, or _make them\nthat did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience_, Heb. ix.\n9. and therefore, when the Jews offered sacrifices, and observed several\nother rites of worship, which were instituted by God, yet, inasmuch as\nthey rested in the external performance thereof, and were destitute of\nfaith in Christ, and other religious duties that were to attend them,\nthey were reckoned no better than _vain oblations_, Isa. i. 13. or\nunprofitable services: how much more might all the rites of worship,\nobserved by the heathen, be deemed so? Therefore this does not give us\nsufficient ground to conclude, that they had the means of salvation, who\nwere destitute of divine revelation, and faith in Christ.\n\nIII. It is farther observed, in this answer, that Christ is the Saviour\nonly of his body the church. This seems to obviate an objection that\nmight be brought against the impossibility of attaining salvation,\nwithout faith in Christ; for some will be ready to conclude, that Christ\nmay be a Saviour by his death, to those who are strangers to him, and\nnot members of his body the church, and therefore it is added, that he\nis the Saviour only of such; which is what several understand, when they\nsay, that there is no salvation out of the pale, or inclosure of the\nchurch. This is rather to be explained than denied; and it will appear,\nfrom what is said in the following answers, wherein the visible church\nis described, as including in it those who profess the true religion;\nand the invisible church is called the _body_, of which Christ is the\n_Saviour_, Eph. v. 23. and the members thereof are said to be made\npartakers of union and communion with him, and to be inseparably joined\nto him, as their head and Husband, when they are effectually called; so\nthat these have an interest in that salvation, which he has procured.\nFrom hence we have ground to conclude, that he will save none by his\nmerits, but such who are made partakers of the internal graces of the\nSpirit, and are united to him by a lively faith, founded on divine\nrevelation; which is agreeable to what has been before maintained in\nthis answer, which establishes the necessity of divine revelation, or\nthe impossibility of persons attaining salvation by framing their lives\naccording to the light of nature, who never heard of the gospel, nor of\nJesus Christ, the sum and substance thereof.\n\nIf this be reckoned an hard saying, tending to lessen the mercy of God,\nwith respect to the objects thereof, it must be considered, that we have\nno other rule of judging concerning this matter, but what is contained\nin scripture. If God has therein made known to his people the only way\nof salvation, we have no warrant to extend it farther than he has done,\nor to say, that because he can apply his grace in such methods, as are\naltogether unknown to us, that therefore he will do it, is no just or\nconclusive argument. And the great design of all that has been said, in\nthis answer, is to induce us to set the highest value on Christ, and his\ngospel; to adore and magnify him for the privileges which we enjoy, in\nbeing favoured with it, and to put us upon improving it to the best\npurposes; for, if they are excluded from the benefits thereof, who never\nheard of it, _How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation?_\nHeb. ii. 3.\n\nFootnote 250:\n\n _See Quest. LXXXIX._\n\nFootnote 251:\n\n _It is a rule in logic_, A quatenus ad omne valet consequentia.\n\nFootnote 252:\n\n \u03c5\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b4\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 253:\n\n \u03c4\u03bf \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5.\n\nFootnote 254:\n\n _See page 266-268._\n\nFootnote 255:\n\n _See I. Vol. 458, 459._\n\nFootnote 256:\n\n _Vid. Bez. in loc._\n\n\n\n\n Quest. LXI., LXII., LXIII., LXIV.\n\n\n QUEST. LXI. _Are all they saved who hear the gospel, and live in the\n church?_\n\n ANSW. All that hear the gospel, and live in the visible church, are\n not saved, but they only who are true members of the church\n invisible.\n\n QUEST. LXII. _What is the visible church?_\n\n ANSW. The visible church is a society made up of all such as, in all\n ages, and places of the world, do profess the true religion, and of\n their children.\n\n QUEST. LXIII. _What are the special privileges of the visible\n church?_\n\n ANSW. The visible church hath the privilege of being under God\u2019s\n special care and government, of being protected and preserved in all\n ages, notwithstanding the opposition of all enemies, and of enjoying\n the communion of saints, the ordinary means of salvation, offers of\n grace by Christ to all the members of it in the ministry of the\n gospel, testifying, that whosoever believes in him shall be saved,\n and excluding none that will come unto him.\n\n QUEST. LXIV. _What is the invisible church?_\n\n ANSW. The invisible church is the whole number of the elect, that\n have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the\n Head.\n\nThey who are made partakers of Christ\u2019s redemption, and are brought into\na state of salvation, have been before described, as members of Christ\u2019s\nbody the church; and we are now led to consider them as brought into\nthis relation to him, and accordingly are to enquire in what sense they\nare members of Christ\u2019s church, and so to speak of this church as to its\nnature, constitution, subjects, and privileges. And,\n\nI. What we are to understand by the word _church_, as we find it applied\nin scripture.\n\n1. It is sometimes used to signify any assembly that is met together,\nwhatever be the design of their meeting. Though, indeed, it is very\nseldom taken in this sense in scripture; nevertheless, there are two or\nthree places in which it is so understood: thus the multitude that met\ntogether at Ephesus, who made a riot, crying out, _Great is Diana of the\nEphesians_, are called _a church_; for the word is the same, which we\ngenerally so render, in Acts xix. 32. Our translators, indeed, render\nit, _The assembly was confused_, and, in ver. 39. it is said, _This\nmatter ought to be determined in a lawful assembly_, that being an\nunlawful one; and, in ver. 41. _The town-clerk dismissed the assembly_;\nin all which places, the word, in the Greek[257], is the same which we,\nin other places, render _church_; and the reason why our translators\nhave rendered it _assembly_, is, because the word _church_ is used, in a\nvery uncommon sense, in these places: and we do not find it taken in\nthat sense in any other part of scripture.\n\n2. It is frequently used, by the Fathers, metonymically, for the place\nin which the church met together for religious worship, and so it is\noften taken among us, and some other reformed churches, as well as the\nPapists; but it does not sufficiently appear that it is ever so\nunderstood in scripture. It is true, some suppose, that it is taken in\nthis sense in 1 Cor. xi. 28. where it is said, _When ye come together in\nthe church, I hear that there are divisions among you_; and, they think,\nit is farther explained, and proved to be taken in this sense, from what\nthe apostle adds, in ver. 20. _When ye come together in one place_; and\nalso from what is said in ver. 22. _Have ye not houses to eat and drink\nin, or despise ye the church of God?_ From whence they conclude that the\napostle means nothing else but the place where they were convened\ntogether, and, more especially, because it is here opposed to their own\n_houses_.\n\nBut to this it may be replied, that, in the first of these verses but\nnow mentioned, viz. _when ye come together in the church_, it may be\nvery easily understood of particular persons met together with the rest\nof the church; and when it is said, in ver. 20. that _when ye come\ntogether into one place_, this does not refer to the place in which they\nwere assembled[258]; but to their meeting together with one design, or\naccord. And when it is said, in ver. 32. _Have ye not houses to eat and\ndrink in, or despise ye the church of God?_ the opposition is not\nbetween their own houses and the place where they were together; but the\nmeaning is, that by your not eating and drinking in your own houses, but\ndoing it in the presence of the church, or the assembly of God\u2019s people\nthat are met together, you are not only chargeable with indecency and\ninterrupting them in the work which they are come about, but you make a\nkind of schism among them, as doing that which they cannot, in\nconscience, approve of, or join with you in; and this you are ready to\ncall caprice, or humour, in them, and hereby you despise them. And,\nindeed, the place of worship cannot properly speaking, be said to be the\nobject of contempt; therefore the apostle does not use the word, in this\nmetonymical sense, for the place of worship, but for the worshipping\nassembly.\n\n_Object._ The word _synagogue_ is often taken metonymically, in\nscripture, for the place where persons were assembled to worship: thus\nour Saviour is said sometimes to _teach in the synagogue of the Jews_,\nMatt. iv. 23. and elsewhere we read of one, concerning whom the Jews\nsay, _He loveth our nation, and hath built us a synagogue_, Luke xii. 5.\nand elsewhere the Psalmist speaking of the church\u2019s enemies, says, they\n_have burnt up all the synagogues of God in the land_, Psal. lxxiv. 8.\nand the apostle James, adapting his mode of speaking to that which was\nused among the Jews, calls the church of God _a synagogue, If there come\nunto your assembly_, or synagogue, as it is in the margin, _a man with a\ngold ring_, &c. James ii. 2. where the word is taken for the place where\nthey were assembled; therefore we have as much reason to understand the\nword _church_ for the place where the church meets together.\n\n_Answ._ It is true, the word _synagogue_, in most of these scriptures,\nis taken for the place where persons meet together on a religious\naccount, though it is very much to be doubted whether it be to be\nunderstood so in the last of the scriptures referred to, and therefore\nour translators render it _assembly_; and so the meaning is, when you\nare met together, if a poor man come into your assembly, you despise\nhim: but suppose the word _synagogue_ were to be taken in this, as it is\nin the other scriptures, for the place of worship, and that, by a parity\nof reason, the word _church_ may be taken in the same sense; all that\ncan be inferred from hence is, that they, who call the places of worship\n_churches_, speak agreeable to the sense, though it may be not the\nexpress words of scripture: but this is so trifling a controversy, that\nit is not worth our while to say any thing more to it.\n\nThe learned Mede[259] insists largely on it, in a discourse, founded on\nthose words of the apostle before-mentioned, _Have ye not houses to eat\nand drink in, or despise ye the church of God?_ in which he attempts to\nprove, that the apostle, by _the church_, means the place of worship,\nfrom the opposition that there is between their _own houses_ and _the\nchurch of God_, the inconclusiveness of which argument has been before\nconsidered. What he farther says, to prove that there were places in the\napostle\u2019s days, appropriated, or set apart, for divine worship; and, in\nparticular, that the room in which they met together, on the days of our\nSaviour\u2019s resurrection, and eight days after, in which they were\nhonoured with his presence, was the same in which he eat his last\nPassover with them, and instituted the Lord\u2019s Supper, and that it was in\nthat place that they constantly met together for worship, and that\ntherein the seven deacons were afterwards chosen, mentioned in Acts vi.\nand that after this a goodly church was erected on the same spot of\nground; these are no other than uncertain conjectures. That they met\ntogether in an apartment, or convenient room, in the dwelling-house of\nsome pious disciple, is very probable; but his observations from its\nbeing an upper room, as freest from disturbance, and nearest to heaven,\nseems to be too trifling for so great a man. And what he says farther,\nin defence of it, as supposing that this is what is intended by their\n_breaking bread from house to house_, in Acts ii, 46. is not so\nagreeable to the sense of the Greek words[260], as our translation,\nwhich he militates against, and supposes, that it ought to be rendered\n_in the house_, that is, in this house appointed for the same purpose.\n\nWhat he farther adds, to prove that there were particular places\nappropriate for worship, in the three first Centuries, by referring to\nseveral quotations out of the Fathers, who lived in these ages, is not\nto be contested; though the objection he brings against this being\nuniversally true, taken from what Origen, Minutius, Felix, Arnobius, and\nLactantius say, concerning the Christians, in their time, declining to\nbuild them, after they had been disturbed and harrassed, by various\npersecutions, seems to have some weight in it, and is not sufficiently\nanswered by him. What he says on this subject, may be consulted in the\nplace before-mentioned.\n\nAll that we shall say, as to this matter, is, that it is beyond dispute,\nthat, since the church was obliged to convene together for religious\nworship, it was necessary that the usual place, in which this was\nperformed, should be known by them. But it still remains uncertain,\nwhether, (though, at some times, in the more peaceable state of the\nchurch, they met constantly in one place) they did not, at other times,\nadjourn from place to place, or sometimes convene in the open air, in\nplaces where they might meet with less disturbance from their enemies.\nAll, who are conversant in the history of the church in those ages,\nknow, that they often met, especially in times of persecution, in caves,\nand other subterraneous places, near the graves of those who had\nsuffered martyrdom, in which their end was not only to encourage them to\nbear the like testimony to Christianity, that they had done, but that\nthey might be more retired and undisturbed in their worship.\n\nBut, to add nothing more on this subject, as being of less moment, that\nwhich I would principally militate against is, what that excellent\nwriter, but now mentioned, attempts to prove, in his following\nDissertation[261], concerning the reverence that is due to these\nchurches; not only whilst divine duties are performed therein, but at\nother times, as supposing that they retain a relative sanctity, which\ncalls for veneration at all times. The main stress of his argument is\ntaken from the sanctity of those places, which, by divine appointment,\nwere consecrated for worship, under the ceremonial law; and the\nreverence that was expressed by persons when they entered into them,\nwhich, by a supposed parity of reason, he applies to those places which\nare erected for worship under the gospel-dispensation.\n\nTo which it may be replied, that it does not follow, that because the\ntabernacle and temple had a relative holiness in them, and therefore the\nsame thing is applicable to the places of worship under the\ngospel-dispensation. For the temple was a type of God\u2019s presence among\nmen, and in particular of the incarnation of Christ, which was a\nglorious instance thereof; and it was an ordinance for their faith in\nthis matter, and therefore holy. And besides, there was a visible\nexternal symbol of God\u2019s presence in these places, whose throne was upon\nthe _mercy seat_, between the cherubims, in the holy of holies; and\ntherefore this might well be called _a holy place_, even, when worship\nwas not performed in it: but it is certain, that other places of\nworship, and, in particular, the synagogues were not then reckoned so,\nwhen no worship was performed in them, though they were erected for that\npurpose; and our Saviour seems to insinuate, that the holiness of places\nis taken away under the gospel-dispensation, as appears by his reply to\nthe woman of Samaria, when speaking concerning their _fathers\nworshipping in that mountain_, viz. in the temple that was erected on\nmount Gerizzim, he says, that _the hour cometh when ye shall neither in\nthis mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father_, John iv. 20,\n21. that is, no place shall be so consecrated for religious worship, as\nthat it shall be more acceptable there than elsewhere, and consequently\nno veneration is to be paid to any such place more than another, where\nthe same worship may be performed[262]. But this is little other than a\ndigression from our present design, which is to shew, that the word\n_church_, in scripture, is, for the most part, if not always, taken for\nan assembly of Christians met together for religious worship, according\nto the rules which Christ has given for their direction herein.\n\nThe Hebrew word, in the Old Testament, by which the church of the Jews\nis signified, is generally rendered the _congregation_[263], or\nassembly; so that in our translation, we never meet with the word\n_church_ in the Old Testament; yet what is there called the\n_congregation_, or assembly of the Israelites, might, very properly, be\ncalled a _church_, inasmuch as it is so styled in the New Testament:\nthus it is said, concerning Moses, that _he was in the church in the\nwilderness_, Acts vii. 38. But it is certain the word _church_ is\npeculiarly adapted, in the New Testament, to signify the Christian\nchurch worshipping God, according to the rules prescribed by our\nSaviour, and others, delivered by his apostles, under the Spirit\u2019s\ndirection; which is the sense in which we are to understand it, in\nspeaking to these answers.[264] And this leads us to consider,\n\nII. That the church is distinguished into _visible_ and _invisible_,\neach of which are particularly defined, and will be farther insisted on,\nunder some following heads; but before this, we may offer something by\nway of premisal, concerning the reason of this distinction. The word\n_church_, according to the grammatical construction thereof, signifies a\nnumber of persons that are called; and, in its application to this\npresent subject, every one, who is a member thereof, may be said to be\ncalled to be made partaker of that salvation which is in Christ. Now, as\nthere is a twofold calling spoken of in scripture, to wit, one visible\nand external, whereby some are made partakers of the external privileges\nof the gospel, and all the ordinances thereof; the other internal, and\nsaving, whereby others are made partakers of those special and\ndistinguishing blessings, which God bestows on the heirs of salvation:\nthe former of these our Saviour intends, when he says, _Many are called,\nbut few are chosen_, Matt. xx. 16. the latter is what the apostle speaks\nof, when he connects it with _justification_ and _glorification_, Rom.\nviii. 30. Now they who are called in the former of these senses, are\nincluded in that branch of the distinction which respects the _visible_\nchurch; the latter are members of that church which is styled\n_invisible_; the former are members of Christ by profession; the latter\nare united to him, as their Head and Husband, who are made partakers of\nspiritual life from him, and shall live for ever with him. The members\nof the visible church are the children of God, as made partakers of the\nexternal dispensation of the covenant of grace; such God speaks of, when\nhe says, _I have nourished and brought up children_, Isa. i. 2. and\nelsewhere he says, concerning the church of the Jews, who were\nexternally in covenant with him, _Israel is my son, even my first-born_,\nExod. iv. 22. But the members of the invisible church, are the children\nof God by faith, Gal. iii. 16. and because children, in this sense,\ntherefore _heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ_, Rom. viii.\n17. These things must particularly be insisted on; and accordingly,\n\nI. We shall speak something concerning the invisible church, which is\ndescribed, in one of the answers we are explaining, as containing the\nwhole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered\ninto one, under Christ their Head.\n\n1. They are said to be elect, and subject to Christ their Head; upon\nwhich account, some have included, in this number, the holy angels,\ninasmuch as they are styled, by the apostle, elect angels, 1 Tim. v. 21.\nand Christ is, in some respects, their Head, as the apostle calls him,\n_The Head of all principality and power_, Coloss. ii. 10. and elsewhere\nthe church is said to come to an _innumerable company of angels_, Heb.\nxii. 22. But though they are, indeed, elected, it may be questioned,\nwhether they were chosen in Christ, as the elect among the children of\nmen are said to be; and, though Christ be styled their Head: yet his\nHeadship over them doth not include in it those things that are implied\nin his being the Head of his chosen people, as he is the Head of the\ncovenant of grace, on which their salvation is founded; or _the Captain\nof their salvation_, as he is styled, chap. ii. 10. who, having\npurchased them by his blood, brings them into a state of grace, and then\nto glory. For these and such-like reasons, I would not assert that\nangels are properly a part of Christ\u2019s invisible church, and therefore\nit only includes those that are elected to salvation among the children\nof men.\n\n2. They are farther described as such, who have been, are, or shall be\ngathered into one, under Christ the Head; therefore there is a part of\nthem that are not actually brought into him. These our Saviour speaks of\nunder the metaphor of sheep, who were _not of this fold_, concerning\nwhom he says, _Them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice_,\nJohn x. 16. And there is another part of them, who are triumphant in\nheaven, as well as those that are actually called by the grace of God,\nwho are in their way to heaven, struggling, at present, with many\ndifficulties, through the prevalency of corruption, and conflicting with\nmany temptations, and exposed to many evils that attend this present\nstate. These different circumstances of those who are brought in to\nChrist, give occasion to that known distinction between the church\ntriumphant and militant.\n\n_Object._ To that part of this description of the invisible church,\nwhich includes in it those that shall be gathered unto Christ, it is\nobjected, that no one can be said to be a member of this church, who is\nnot actually brought in unto him; for that would be to suppose, that\nunconverted persons might be members thereof, and consequently that\nChrist is their Head, Shepherd and Saviour; though they be\ncharacterized, in scripture, as children of wrath, running in all excess\nof riot, refusing to submit to him, and neglecting that great salvation\nwhich is offered in the gospel: How can such be members of Christ\u2019s\nchurch, and that in the highest sense thereof?\n\nAnd it is farther objected, against the account given of the invisible\nchurch in this answer, that a part of those who are said, to be the\nmembers thereof, are considered at present as not existing; and\ntherefore it must be a very improper, if not absurd, way of speaking, to\nsay, that such are members of Christ\u2019s church.\n\n_Answ._ I am not inclined to extenuate those expressions of scripture,\nwhich represent unconverted persons as children of wrath, in open\nrebellion against God, and refusing to submit to him; nor would I say\nany thing from whence such might have the least ground to conclude that\nthey have a right to any of the privileges of God\u2019s elect, or Christ\u2019s\ninvisible church, or that they are included in that number; for that\nwould be to expose the doctrine of election to one of the main\nobjections that is brought against it, as though it led to\nlicentiousness: nevertheless, let it be considered, that this answer\ntreats of the invisible church; therefore whatever privileges are\nreserved for them, who, though elected, are in an unconverted state,\nthese are altogether unknown to them; and it would be an unwarrantable\npresumption for them to lay claim to them. However, we must not deny\nthat God knows who are his, who are redeemed by Christ, and what\nblessings, pursuant thereunto, shall be applied to them: he knows the\ntime when they shall be made a willing people, in the day of his power,\nand what grace he designs to work in them: he considers the elect in\ngeneral, as given to Christ, and Christ as having undertaken to do all\nthat is necessary to fit them for the heavenly blessedness.\n\nMoreover, we must not suppose but that God knows, without the least\ndoubt and uncertainty, the whole number of those who shall appear with\nChrist, in glory, at his second coming; for things that are future to\nus, are present, with respect to him, as with one single view, he knows\nall things, past and to come, as well as present; and therefore, if the\nexpression made use of be thus qualified, which is agreeable to the\ndesign of this answer, I cannot see that the objection has sufficient\nforce to overthrow it, any more than those arguments that are usually\nbrought against the doctrine of election, can render it less worthy to\nbe received by us.\n\nAs for the other branch of the objection, that they, who are not _in\nbeing_, cannot be denominated members of Christ\u2019s church in any sense:\nthough it be allowed, that such cannot be, at present, the subjects of\nany privileges; yet we must consider, that, since God seeth not as man\nseeth, they may, in his eternal purpose to save them, be considered as\nthe objects thereof, and therefore in his account, be reckoned members\nof Christ\u2019s invisible church, that is, such as he designs to bring into\nbeing, and afterwards to make them meet to partake of the inheritance of\nthe saints in light. Therefore I see no reason to except against this\nmode of speaking, in which they are described as such, who shall be\ngathered under Christ, their Head: however, if the objection only\nrespected the propriety, or impropriety, of a word, provided it had not\na tendency to overthrow the doctrine of God\u2019s certain and peremptory\nelection, I would not militate against it.\n\n3. This church, which is said to consist of the whole number of the\nelect, is styled invisible; by which we are not to understand, that\ntheir election of God cannot be known by themselves, since we have\nsufficient ground, from scripture, to conclude, that believers may\nattain the assurance thereof in this life: but it is so called, because\nmany of them have finished their course in this world, and are entered\ninto that state, in which they are, with respect to those that live\nhere, no more seen.\n\nMoreover, the number of those who are styled the members of this church,\ncannot be determined by any creature. It is only known to God; and that\ngrace, which any of them experience, how far soever they may arrive to\nthe knowledge of it themselves, cannot be said to be certainly and\ninfallibly known by others; and therefore the apostle says, concerning\nthem, that _their life is hid with Christ in God_, Col. iii. 3.\n\nHowever, though this church be, at present, invisible, yet when the\nwhole number of the elect shall be brought in to Christ, and, as the\napostle speaks, _Gathered together unto him_, 2 Thess. ii. 1. then it\nshall no longer remain invisible; for _when Christ, who is their life,\nshall appear, they also shall appear with him in glory_, Col. iii. 4. We\nmay farther observe concerning the church, as thus described,\n\n(1.) That it has many glorious characters given of it: thus it is\nfrequently called Christ\u2019s spouse, in the Song of Solomon, by which he\nseems to intend more than what could well be said concerning the Jewish\nchurch; for the description there given of it, as _being all fair, and\nwithout spot_, Cant. iv. 7. and is rather applicable to the state in\nwhich the saints shall be hereafter, than that in which they are at\npresent; and therefore I am inclined to think, that he speaks of the\ninvisible church, or the election of grace. And this character, given of\nthem, is taken from that conjugal union which there is between Christ\nand believers; on which account it is said elsewhere, _Thy Maker is\nthine Husband, the Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy\nOne of Israel_, Isa. liv. 5. and the Psalmist describes it, in a very\nelegant manner, as thus related to Christ, when he says, _upon thy\nright-hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir_, Psal. xlv. 9. and then\nspeaks of it, as arrived to the highest pitch of honour and happiness,\nwhen introduced into the king\u2019s presence _in raiment of needlework, with\ngladness and rejoicing, being brought into his palace_, ver. 14, 15. and\nthe apostle calls it, _The General Assembly and church of the\nfirst-born, which are written_, Heb. xii. 23. or, as it is in the\nmargin, enrolled _in heaven_; and it is also considered, when presented\nby Christ to himself, or to his own view at last, being brought to\nperfection, as a _glorious church; not having spot or wrinkle, or any\nsuch thing; but holy, and without blemish_, Eph. v. 27. In this respect\nit may be called, _The holy catholic church_, though many, without\nsufficient ground, understand those words of the creed, in which it is\nso called, in a sense very different from, and inferior to it.\n\n(2.) This invisible church is but one body, and therefore not divided,\nlike the visible church, into many particular bodies, as will be\nobserved under a following head. This seems to be the meaning of that\nexpression, in which it is said, _My dove, my undefiled is but one_,\nCant. vi. 9.\n\n(3.) It is not the seat of human government, as the visible church is;\nnor are persons said to be received into its communion. And whatever\nofficers Christ has appointed, to secure the order, and to promote the\nedification of his churches, these have nothing to do in the church,\nconsidered as invisible; however, it is eminently under Christ\u2019s special\ngovernment, who is the Head, as well as the Saviour thereof.\n\n(4.) There are many special privileges, which belong to it, that include\nin them all the graces and comforts, which are applied to them by the\nHoly Spirit: and so they are considered, as enjoying union and communion\nwith Christ, in grace and glory, as being called, justified, sanctified,\nand many of them assured of their interest in Christ here and all of\nthem shall be glorified with him hereafter. These privileges are\ninsisted on, in several following answers; for which reason we pass them\nover at present, and proceed to consider another of the answers, which\nwe are to explain: And accordingly,\n\nII. We have an account of the visible church, which is described as a\nsociety, made up of all such, who, in all ages, and places of the world,\nprofess the true religion, and of their children. In this description of\nthe church, we may observe,\n\n1. That it is called visible, not only because the worship performed\ntherein, and the laws given to those particular churches, of which it\nconsists, are visible; but its members are so, or known to the world:\nand the profession they make of the true religion, or subjection to\nChrist, as their Head and Sovereign, is open, free, and undisguised,\nwhereby they are distinguished from the rest of the world.\n\n2. It is called a society, which denomination it takes from the\ncommunion which its members have with one another: but, inasmuch as the\nword is in the singular number, denoting but one body of men, it is to\nbe enquired whether this be a proper mode of speaking, though frequently\nused.\n\n(1.) It is allowed, by all Protestants, that there are, and have been,\never since the preaching of the gospel by the apostles, many particular\nchurches in the world[265]; and this is agreeable to what we often read\nof in the New Testament, as the apostle Paul directs his epistles to\nparticular churches; such as that at Ephesus, Corinth, Philippi, &c.\nSome of these were larger, others smaller, as denoting, that no regard\nis to be had to the number of persons of which each of them consists:\nthus we read of churches in particular houses, 1 Cor. xvi. 19. and these\nmay each of them, without the least impropriety of expression, be styled\na visible church, for the reasons above mentioned.\n\n(2.) It must also be allowed, on the other hand, that the church is\nspoken of in the singular number, in scripture, as though it were but\none: thus it is said that Saul _made havoc of the church, entering into\nevery house, and haling men and women, committed them to prison_, Acts\nviii. 3. and, speaking of himself, he says, _Concerning zeal,\npersecuting the church_, Phil. iii. 6. and elsewhere, that, _beyond\nmeasure, he persecuted the church of God, and wasted it_, Gal. i. 13.\nNow it is certain, that it was not one particular church that he\ndirected his persecuting rage against, but all the churches of Christ,\nwherever he came, especially those in Judea, which he speaks of in the\nplural number, ver. 22. by which he explains what he means, by his\n_persecuting the church of God_; for it is said, _He which persecuted us\nin times past, now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed_, ver.\n23. and elsewhere it is said, _God hath set some in the church; first,\napostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly, teachers_, 1 Cor. xii. 28. by\nwhich we are to understand all the churches; for the apostles were not\npastors of any particular church, but acted as pastors in all the\nchurches wherever they came, though every church had its own respective\npastor set over it, who was, in a peculiar manner, related to it; yet\nall these churches are called, in this place, _the church_. Therefore we\nare not to contend about the use of a word, provided it be rightly\nexplained, whether persons speak of the church in the singular, or\nchurches in the plural number. If we speak of the church, as though it\nwere but one, the word is to be taken collectively for all the churches\nof Christ in the world: this the apostle explains, when he speaks of\nthem all, as though they were _one body_, under the influence of the\nsame _Spirit, called in one hope of their calling, one Lord, one faith,\none baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through\nall, and in them all_, Eph. iv. 4-6. this is that _unity of the Spirit\nwhich_ they were to _endeavour to keep_, and so to act agreeably to\ntheir faith herein; and, in this respect, we freely allow that all the\nchurches of Christ are one; there is but one foundation on which they\nare built, one rule of faith, one way to heaven, in which they all\nprofessedly walk. Moreover, the churches of Christ have not only\ncommunion with one another, in their particular societies, but there is\na communion of churches, whereby they own one another, as walking in the\nsame fellowship with themselves, express a sympathy with each other in\nafflictive circumstances, and rejoice in the edification and flourishing\nstate of each other. In these respects we consider the churches as one,\nand so call them all the church of Christ.\n\nNevertheless, this is to be understood with certain limitations; and\ntherefore we are not to suppose that the church, as the seat of\ngovernment, is one; or that there is one set of men, who have a warrant\nto bear rule over the whole, that is, over all the churches of Christ;\nfor none suppose that there is one universal pastor of the church,\nexcept the Papists. All Protestants, however they explain their\nsentiments about the catholic visible church, allow, that the seat of\ngovernment is in each particular church, of which no one has any right\nto give pastors to other churches, or to appoint who shall be admitted\ninto their respective communion.\n\n(3.) There is another thing in this description of the visible church,\nwhich stands in need of being explained and defended, when it is said,\nthat it consists of all such as, in all ages, and places, of the world,\ndo profess the true religion: if nothing be intended hereby, but that no\none has a right to the privilege of communion of saints, or fit to be\nreceived into any church of Christ, but those who profess the true\nreligion, namely, the faith on which it is built; this I am far from\ndenying; for that would be to suppose that the church professes one\nfaith, and some of its members another; or that it builds up what it\nallows others to throw down.\n\nBut I am a little at a loss to account for the propriety of the\nexpression, when the church is said to be a society, professing the true\nreligion, _in all ages_. It cannot be supposed that the church, or\nchurches, that are now in being, are any part of that society which\nprofessed the true religion in Moses\u2019s time, or in the apostolic age;\nbut it is principally the propriety of expression that is to be excepted\nagainst; for I suppose, nothing is intended hereby, but that as the\nchurch, in every respective foregoing age, consisted of those who\nembraced the true religion, it consists of no other in our age.\n\nThere is one thing more which I would take leave to observe in this\ndescription of the church, which renders it incomplete, inasmuch as it\nspeaks of it as consisting of those who profess the true religion; but\nmakes no mention of that bond of union which constitutes every\nparticular branch of this universal church of Christ. It speaks, indeed\nof those qualifications which belong to every one as a Christian, which\nis a remote, though necessary condition of being received into church\ncommunion; but takes no notice of that mutual consent, which is the more\nimmediate bond by which the members of every church coalesce together:\nbut this we may have occasion to speak of under a following head.\n\nThe last thing I observe, in this description of the visible church, is,\nthat it consists not only of the professors of the true religion, but of\ntheir children; this is rather to be explained, than denied: however, I\ncannot but observe, that many have run too great lengths in what they\nhave asserted concerning the right of children to this privilege. Some\nof the Fathers have not only considered them as members of the church,\nbut brought them to the Lord\u2019s table, and given them the bread dipped in\nthe wine, the same way as food is applied to infants, when they were too\nyoung to discover any thing of the design thereof: that which led them\ninto this mistake, was their misunderstanding the sense of our Saviour\u2019s\nwords, _Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood,\nye have no life in you_, John vi. 53. supposing that this was meant of\ntheir eating bread, and drinking wine in the Lord\u2019s supper, though they\nmight easily have known that this was not our Saviour\u2019s meaning;\ninasmuch as the Lord\u2019s supper was not instituted, till some time after,\nand, when instituted, it was not designed to be reckoned so necessary to\nsalvation, as that the bare not partaking thereof should exclude from\nit. Cyprian gives an account of his administering it to an infant\nbrought by her mother; and relates a circumstance attending it, that\nsavours so much of superstition, in that grave and pious Father, that I\nforbear to mention it.[266] And this was not only practised by him, but\nby several others in some following ages. And many in later ages speak\nof children as incomplete members of the church; and some suppose that\nthis is the result of their baptismal dedication; others that it is\ntheir birth-right, and as the consequence hereof they have maintained,\nthat when they come to be adult, they rather claim their right to\nchurch-communion than are admitted to it, as those are, who are not the\nchildren of church-members, and as a farther consequence deduced from\nthis supposition, they assert, that if they are guilty of vile\nenormities, and thereby forfeit this privilege, they are in a formal way\nto be excommunicated, and that it is a defect in the government of the\nchurches in our day, that this is not practised by them.\n\nThis is not what is intended by children\u2019s being members of churches,\ntogether with their parents, in this answer; but that which I think all\nwill allow of, _viz._ that children being the property of parents, they\nare obliged to dedicate them, together with themselves, to God, and\npursuant thereunto to endeavour to bring them up in the nurture and\nadmonition of the Lord, hoping that through his blessing on education,\nthey may, in his own time and way, be qualified for church communion,\nand then admitted to it, that hereby the churches of Christ may have an\naddition of members to fill up the places of those who are called off\nthe stage.\n\nAs to the concern of the church in this matter, which in some respects\nredounds to the advantage of the children of those who are members of\nit, they are obliged to shew their regard to them, so far as to exhort\ntheir parents, if there be occasion, to express a due concern for their\nspiritual welfare; or, if they are defective herein, to extend their\ncensure rather to the parents, than to the children, as neglecting a\nmoral duty, and so acting unbecoming the relation they stand in to them.\nThus concerning the description given of the visible church in this\nanswer; we shall now proceed to speak more particularly of it, and\naccordingly shall consider the former and present constitution and\ngovernment thereof. And,\n\nI. As to what concerns the state of the Jewish church before the\ngospel-dispensation; this was erected in the wilderness, and the laws by\nwhich it was governed, were given by God, and transmitted to Israel by\nthe hand of Moses. There was a very remarkable occurrence preceding\ntheir being settled as a church, that we read of, Exod. xix. 7, 8. in\nwhich God demanded an explicit consent from the whole congregation, to\nbe his people, and to be governed by those laws he should give them,\nupon which they made a public declaration, that _all that the Lord hath\nspoken we will do_. And Moses _returns the words of the people unto the\nLord_. And soon after this there was another covenant-transaction\nbetween God and them, mentioned in a following chapter, when Moses _came\nand told the people all the words of the Lord, and all his judgments;\nand the people answered with one voice, saying, All the words which the\nLord hath said will we do_. And this was confirmed by sacrifice, and _he\ntook half the blood thereof and put it in basons, and half of the blood\nhe sprinkled on the altar, and he took the book of the covenant and read\nit in the audience of the people_; upon which they repeat their\nengagement, _all that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient_.\nAnd _then he took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said,\nbehold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you,\nconcerning all these words_, Exod. xxiv. 3, 5-9. and then we have an\naccount of an extraordinary display which they had of the divine glory,\n_They saw the God of Israel, and did eat and drink_, ver. 11. which was\na farther confirming this covenant. And upon some important occasions\nthey renewed this covenant with God, _avouched him to be their God_, and\nhe condescended at the same time _to avouch them to be his peculiar\npeople_, Deut. xxvi. 17, 18. Thus they were settled in a church-relation\nby God\u2019s appointment, and their solemn covenant and consent to be his\npeople.\n\nAfter this we read of God\u2019s settling the form of their\nchurch-government, appointing those various ordinances and institutions\nwhich are contained in the ceremonial law, and settling a ministry among\nthem, and giving directions concerning every branch of the work that was\nto be performed by them. Aaron and his sons had the priesthood committed\nto them, who were to offer gifts and sacrifices; the High-Priest was to\nbe chief minister in holy things, the other priests assistants to him in\nmost branches of his office; and when the temple was built, and the\nservice to be performed therein established, the priests attended in\ntheir respective courses, each course entering on their ministry every\nSabbath, 2 Chron, xxiii. 4. and there being twenty-four courses, 1\nChron. xxiv. it came to their respective turns twice every year. The\nporters also, who were to wait continually at the avenues of the temple\nday and night, to prevent any unclean person or thing from coming into\nit, as well as its being plundered of the treasures that were laid up in\nchambers adjoining to it; these also ministered in their courses, the\nnumber whereof was the same with that of the priests, 1 Chron. xxiii. 5.\ncompared with chap. xxvi. And the singers, who attended some parts of\nthe worship, ministered in their courses, 1 Chron. xxiii. 5. compared\nwith chap. xxv.\n\nAnd besides these, there were some appointed to represent the people,\nwho were chosen to come up from their respective places of abode with\nthe priests when they ministered in their courses; these are called\n_stationary men_. Dr. Lightfoot[267] gives an account of them from some\nJewish writers who treat on this subject; not that we have any mention\nof them in scripture; but they suppose that it took its rise from that\nlaw in Lev. i. 3, 4. where they who brought an _offering to the Lord_\nwere obliged to be present, and to _put their hands on the head_\nthereof, as well as the priests, who had the main concern in this\nservice. From hence it is inferred, that since, besides the sacrifices\nthat were offered for particular persons, there were daily sacrifices\noffered in the behalf of the whole congregation; and because it was\nimpossible for them to be present to bear a part in this service, it was\nnecessary that some should be deputed to represent the whole body of the\npeople, that so there might be a number present to assist in this\nservice, that these acts of worship might be performed in the most\npublic manner; and inasmuch as this was to be performed daily, it was\nnecessary that some should be deputed, whose proper business it was to\nattend; and he thinks that as there were priests deputed to minister in\ntheir courses, so there was a number deputed to represent the people,\nwho went up to Jerusalem with the priests of the respective course. And\nhe farther adds, that at the same time that these were ministering in\nthe temple, the people met together, and spent that week in those\nsynagogues which were near the place of their abode, in fasting, and\nother acts of religious worship, in which, though at a distance, they\nimplored a blessing on the service that their brethren were performing.\n\nAs for the rest of the people, they were obliged to be present at\nJerusalem, at the solemn and public festival, performed three times a\nyear; and others of them, who had committed any sin that was to be\nexpiated by sacrifice, were to come up thither to the temple at other\ntimes, and bring their sacrifices to atone for the guilt which they had\ncontracted.\n\nIf it be said, that this was, indeed, a solemn method of worship,\nexceeding beautiful, and also had a circumstance in it, which was its\nglory, _viz._ that the temple-service was typical of Christ, and the way\nof salvation by him: but what methods were there to instruct the people\nin the doctrines of religion? It would not much conduce thereunto for\nthem to come up to Jerusalem, to worship at the three yearly festivals:\nhow did they spend their Sabbaths? or, what acts of worship were they\nengaged in, in their respective places of abode?\n\nTo this we answer, that God also appointed a sufficient number to be\ntheir ministers in holy things, helpers of their faith as to this\nmatter, _viz._ not only the priests, but the whole tribe of Levi, whose\nplace of residence was conveniently situated: they had forty-eight\ncities in various parts of the land; some of which were not far distant\nfrom any of the people. These instructed them in the way of God, the\npeople _sought the knowledge_ hereof _from their mouths_, Mal. ii. 7.\nAnd there were, besides the temple, several other places appointed for\nreligious worship: these were of two sorts, namely,\n\n1. The _synagogues_, which were generally built in cities, of which\nhardly any were without them, if they consisted of a number of persons\nwho were able to erect them, and had leisure, from their secular\nemployments, to preside over, and set forward, the work to be performed\ntherein;[268] and that was of a different nature from the\ntemple-service, in which gifts and sacrifices were to be offered, God\nhaving expressly forbidden the erecting any altars elsewhere; therefore\nthe worship performed in them was prayers, reading and expounding the\nlaw and the prophets, and instructing the people in all other duties of\nreligion, which were necessary to be performed in the conduct of their\nlives.\n\nThe manner of doing this, was not only by delivering set discourses,\nagreeable to our common methods of preaching, Acts xiii. 15. and seq.\nbut holding disputations and conferences together about some important\nmatters of religion: thus the apostle Paul _disputed in the synagogues_,\nchap. xvii. 17, 19, 8. This was done occasionally; but the Jews met\nconstantly in them for religious worship; and our Saviour encouraged\nthem herein with his presence and instructions: thus it is said, not\nonly that _he taught in their synagogues_, but that this was his\nconstant practice; for it is said, _He came to Nazareth; and, as his\ncustom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath-day, and stood up\nfor to read_, Luke iv. 15, 16.\n\nAnd there were also certain officers appointed over every synagogue:\nthus we read sometimes of the _rulers of the synagogues_, Mark v. 22.\nLuke viii. 41, 49. whose business was to prevent the doing any thing\nthat was indecent and disorderly; and there were some persons from whom\na word of exhortation was expected, who were called, chap. iv. 20.\nministers thereof.[269] And we are not to suppose that this method of\npromoting religion in the synagogues, was only practised in the last and\nmost degenerate age of the Jewish church, but that they had their\nsynagogues in the more early and purer ages thereof, which, if we had no\nexpress account of in the Old Testament, yet it might be inferred from\nthis account thereof in our Saviour\u2019s time; for certainly there were no\nmethods used then by the Jews to instruct the people in matters of\nreligion, that were not as necessary, and consequently in use, in\nforegoing ages. It is true, we do not oftentimes read of synagogues in\nthe Old Testament; notwithstanding there is mention of them in that\nscripture, before referred to, in Psal. lxxiv. 8. in which the Psalmist\ncomplains, that _they had burnt up all the synagogues of God in the\nland_; where the word being in the plural number, it cannot be meant, as\nthe Chaldee Paraphrast renders it, of the temple. This appears from the\ncontext, in which he speaks of the _enemies of God roaring in the midst\nof the congregations_; and, besides this, he expressly mentions their\nburning the temple, by _casting fire into the sanctuary of God, and\ncasting down the dwelling-place of his name to the ground_, in ver. 3,\n7.\n\n2. Besides these synagogues, there were other places, in which public\nworship was performed, called, Places of prayer,[270] Mr. Mede gives an\naccount, from Epiphanius, of the difference that there was between these\nand the synagogues, when he says, that a proseucha, or a place appointed\nfor prayer, was a plot of ground, encompassed with a wall, or some other\nlike mound, or inclosure, open above, much like to our courts; whereas a\nsynagogue was a covered edifice as our houses and churches are. He also\nadds, that the former of these were generally fixed in places without\nthe cities, in the fields, in places of retirement; and that they were\ngenerally rendered more private, and fit for the work that was to be\nperformed in them, by being surrounded with a plantation of trees; and\nhe supposes, that these were not only made use of in our Saviour\u2019s and\nthe apostles time, but in foregoing ages; and that the grove that\nAbraham is said to have planted, in _which he called on the name of the\nLord_, Gen. xxi. 33. was nothing else but one of these convenient\nplaces, planted for that purpose, in which public worship was performed,\nwhich seems very probable.[271]\n\nAnd we read, in scripture concerning _high places_. These, as Lightfoot\nobserves,[272] are sometimes used in scripture, in a commendable sense:\nthus Samuel is said to _go up_ to one of these _high places_, 1 Sam. ix.\n19. to perform some acts of religious worship; and we read of another\nhigh place, in which there was _a company of prophets, with a psaltery,\nand a tabret, and a pipe, and a harp before them, and they did\nprophesy_, chap. x. 5. It is true, in other scriptures, we read of them\nas abused by that idolatry that was performed in them, 1 Kings xi. 7.\nchap. xii. 31. These the pious kings of Judah, who reformed religion,\ntook away; and when it is said, in some of their reigns, that how much\nsoever they destroyed idolatrous worship, yet _the high places were not\ntaken away_, 2 Kings xii. 3. xiv. 4. xv. 4. that learned writer thinks,\nthat they should not have been destroyed, as places of worship, or\npublic assemblies, and therefore that this is not reckoned as a blemish\nin the reign of these kings, that the high places were not taken away;\nfor whatever abuse there was, it consisted in that sacrifice and incense\nwere offered there, which were parts of worship confined to the temple;\nso that if they had not only reformed them from the abuse of those that\nexercised their idolatry therein; but had also proceeded to reform this\nabuse of sacrificing there, they might lawfully have met there to\nperform religious worship, which, it is supposed, they did in\nsynagogues, high places, and groves, that were appointed for that\npurpose: thus then they met together for religious worship in other\nplaces besides the synagogues.\n\nAgain, we read, in the New Testament, that _Paul went, on the Sabbath\nday, out of the city of Philippi, by a river-side, where prayer was wont\nto be made_, Acts xvi. 13. where he also preached the word by which\nLydia was converted; this some think to be one of those places where\nthey resorted for prayer, and other public worship: and others suppose,\nthat the place mentioned in the gospel, which our Saviour resorted to,\nwhen it is said, that he _went out into a mountain to pray, and\ncontinued all night in prayer to God_, Luke vi. 12. ought to be\nrendered, _in that particular place where prayer was wont to be made to\nGod_.[273] But the Greek words may as well be rendered as they are in\nour translation; and then it has no respect to any particular place of\nprayer, but imports his retirement to perform this duty. Thus we have\nendeavoured to prove, that the church of the Jews had other places in\nwhich worship was performed, besides the temple, which was of very great\nadvantage for the propagating religion among them. We might have farther\nproceeded to consider their church-censures, ordained by God for crimes\ncommitted, whereby persons were cut off from among their people, by\nexcommunication, when the crimes they were guilty of did not deserve\ndeath: but I shall not enlarge any farther on this head, but proceed to\nspeak concerning the gospel-church, and so consider,\n\nII. The methods taken, in order to the first planting and increase\nthereof, by the apostles. When our Saviour had finished the work of\nredemption, after his resurrection, he altered the form of the church,\nand appointed his apostles not only to signify this to the world, but to\nbe instruments in erecting this new church. We have before considered\nthese apostles as qualified to be witnesses to Christ\u2019s resurrection,\nand also as having received a commission from him to preach the gospel\nto all nations, and an order to tarry at Jerusalem till they received\nthose extraordinary gifts from the Holy Ghost, that were necessary for\ntheir performing the work they were to engage in. Now, pursuant\nhereunto, they all of them resided at Jerusalem; and, a few days after\nChrist\u2019s ascension into heaven, the Holy Ghost was poured upon them _on\nthe day of Pentecost_, Acts ii. 1, 2. upon which, they immediately began\nto exercise their public ministry in that city, in which they had the\nadvantage of publishing the gospel to a numerous concourse of people,\nwho resorted thither, from various parts of the world, in which the Jews\nwere dispersed, to celebrate that festival. Some suppose, that there was\na greater number gathered together in that city, than was usual, it\nbeing one of those three feasts to which the Jews resorted from all\nparts of the land: though a learned writer[274] supposes, that the Jews\nwere not obliged to come to this feast from other nations; neither were\nthey, that came there, said, as these are, to dwell at Jerusalem;\ntherefore he thinks that that which brought them here from the several\nparts of the world, was the expectation which the Jews, generally had,\nthat the Messiah would appear, and erect a temporal kingdom, and that\nJerusalem was the place where he would fix his throne, and therefore\nthey would be there to wait on him, and share the honours they expected\nfrom him.\n\nBut, whatever occasion brought them here, it was a seasonable\nopportunity for the gospel first to be preached; and accordingly Peter\npreached his first sermon to a multitude that were gathered together,\nand therein exercised the gift of tongues, by which means his discourse\nwas not only understood by men of different languages; but they had\nherein a plain proof that he was under the inspiration of the Holy\nGhost; and he takes occasion to improve this amazing dispensation of\nprovidence, by telling them that it was an accomplishment of what had\nbeen before predicted by the prophet Joel; and then he preached Christ\nto them, declaring that he, and the rest of the apostles, were all\nwitnesses that God raised him from the dead, and exalted him by his\nright-hand, and that, pursuant hereunto, this extraordinary gift of the\nHoly Ghost was conferred on them.\n\nThe success of his first sermon was very remarkable; for there were\nadded to the church, as the first-fruits of his ministry, _three\nthousand souls_, ver. 41, 47. We also read, that _the Lord added daily\nto the church such as should be saved_; and, soon after this it is said,\nthat _the number of the men_, of whom the church consisted, _was about\nfive thousand_, chap. iv. 4. a very large and numerous church, meeting,\nas is more than probable, in the same city, where we must conclude, that\nthey fixed their abode, rather than that they returned to the respective\nplaces from whence they came, that they might have an opportunity to sit\nunder the sound of the gospel, which was, at that time, preached no\nwhere else; and that which makes this more probable, may be inferred\nfrom the method taken for their subsistence in the world; there would\nhave been no occasion for those who had possessions to sell them, and\ndispose of the price thereof to supply the exigences of their\nfellow-members, had they not removed their habitations, and forsook all\nfor the sake of the gospel.\n\nThis church had wonderful instances of the presence of God among them,\nwhich did more than compensate for the loss they must be supposed to\nsustain, as to their secular affairs. We read, for some after this, of\nlittle else but success attending the gospel, and persecutions raised by\nthe Jews against it, which rather tended to their own shame and\nconfusion, than the extirpating of it; and when they so far prevailed,\nat length, that, after the death of Stephen, the first martyr, a new\npersecution was begun, by the instigation of Saul, (as yet not converted\nto the faith) the consequence hereof being the _scattering of this\nchurch throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria_, chap. viii. 1. this\nwas ordered for the furtherance of the gospel, for wherever they came,\nthey preached, and many believed: but the apostles, at the same time,\nobeying the order that was before given them, continued at Jerusalem,\nchap. i. 4. and there still remained a church in that city sitting under\ntheir ministry. This was wisely ordered, by the providence of God, not\nonly as an accomplishment of those predictions that respected the\ngospel\u2019s first being sounded from thence, but that, in this church, a\nsufficient number might be trained up for the exercise of the ministry\nin other places, when there should be occasion for it; and, in order\nhereto, they had some advantages which no schools of learning could\nafford them, for they had the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost.\nHere it was that the prophets and evangelists were first raised up,\nbeing immediately taught by God. This was the first scene of the\ngospel-church. Here it continued till the apostles were ordered, by the\nHoly Ghost, to travel into those parts of the world, in which, by his\ndirection, their ministry was to be exercised: the greatest part of them\nwere ordered to those places, where some of the Jews resided; but Paul\nwas ordained to exercise his ministry among the Gentiles. Accordingly we\nread, that _the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul, for the\nwork whereunto I have called them_, Acts xiii. 2. This divine command\nthey immediately obeyed; and then we read of churches erected in various\nparts of the world by his ministry, who is styled, _The apostles of the\nGentiles_.\n\nThere are several things observable in the exercise of his ministry:\n\n1. Wherever he came he preached the gospel, and confirmed it by\nmiracles, as occasion served; and this was attended with such wonderful\nsuccess and expedition, that, without a remarkable hand of providence\ngoing along with him, the multitudes that were converted by his\nministry, exceeded not only what might be done by one man, in the\ncompass of his life, but several ages of men. At one time we read of him\nexercising his ministry from Jerusalem, round about to Illyricum, Rom.\nxv. 19. at other times, in several parts of Asia Minor; then in Spain,\nand at Rome, and some parts of Greece, ver. 28. so that, wherever he\ncame, his ministry was attended with wonderful success, as the Roman\nemperor says, _I came, I saw, I conquered_.\n\n2. When the apostle had, by the success of his ministry, prepared fit\nmaterials for a church, inasmuch as it would take up too much of his\ntime to reside among them till they were provided with a pastor, and\nother officers, which were necessary to carry on the work that was begun\nin it, he sent for one of the Evangelists, who, as was before observed,\nwere fitted for this service, by those extraordinary gifts, which they\nhad received, while they continued in the church at Jerusalem. The\noffice of these evangelists seems to have been principally this; that\nthey were to _set in order the things that were wanting_, or left, by\nthe apostles to be done, _and ordain elders in every city_, as the\napostle Paul intimates, when giving this charge to Titus, Titus i. 5.\nwho appears to have been an Evangelist, particularly ordained to\nminister to him, to build upon the foundation he had laid. These\nevangelists appear to have had all the qualifications for the ministry\nthat the apostles had, excepting what respected their having seen Jesus,\nwhereby they were qualified to be witnesses of his resurrection; and\nthey continued till they had performed that part of their work, in\nsettling pastors, and other officers in churches; and then they were\nready to obey another call, to succeed the apostles in some other\nplaces, and so perform the same work there.\n\n3. While the apostles were thus concerned for the gathering and building\nup of churches, and were assisted herein by the evangelists, there was a\ncontinual intercourse between them and those churches, whose first rise\nwas owing to the success of their ministry. Accordingly they conversed\nwith them by epistles; some of which they received by the inspiration of\nthe Holy Ghost, as designed to be a rule of the churches faith in all\nsucceeding ages. Some of these epistles were written by other apostles,\nbut most of them by Paul, Phil. ii. 19. who sometimes desires to _know\ntheir state_; at other times, he informs them of his own, and the\nopposition he met with; or the success of his ministry, the persecution\nhe was exposed to for it, Coloss. iv. 7. 2 Cor. i. 8. 1 Cor. xvi. 9. and\nthe necessity of the churches, which required their contribution for\ntheir support; and therein he often enlarges on those important truths,\nwhich, had he been among them, would have been the subject of his\nministry. This was necessary to strengthen their hands and encourage\nthem to persevere in that faith which they made profession of.\n\nAnd to this we may add, that there were, upon several occasions,\nmessengers sent from the churches to the apostle, to inform him of their\nstate, to transmit to him those contributions which were necessary for\nthe relief of other churches, and to give him that countenance,\nencouragement, and assistance, that his necessities required; and some\nof these were very excellent persons, the best that could be chosen out\nof the church for that service. The apostle calls some of them, _The\nmessengers of the churches, and the glory of Christ_, 2 Cor. viii. 23.\nwhich is an extraordinary character. Some think, he intends hereby that\nthey were the messengers of those churches, which churches are the glory\nof Christ, that is, the seat in which he displays his glory; others\nsuppose, that he calls these messengers, _the glory of Christ_, as they,\nby their wise and faithful conduct, promoted his glory, which was not\ndependent on it, but illustrated thereby. Sometimes they were ministers\nof churches, sent occasionally on these errands: thus Epaphroditus was a\n_messenger and minister of the church at Philippi_, Phil. ii. 25. and\nOnesiphorus was sent to strengthen and encourage the hands of the\napostle, when he was a prisoner at Rome, whom he speaks of with great\naffection, when he says, _He sought me out diligently, and found me, and\nwas not ashamed of my chain_, 2 Tim. i. 16, 17. These were very useful\npersons to promote the interest of Christ, which was carrying on by the\napostle, though it does not appear that this was a standing office in\nthe church, their service being only occasional. Thus we have considered\nthe apostle, as engaged in gathering and building up churches, in such a\nway, as was peculiar to them in the first age of the gospel.\n\nIII. We shall now proceed to speak concerning that state and government\nof the church, that was designed to continue longer than the apostolic\nage, and is a rule to the churches of Christ in our day. We have before\nconsidered the evangelists as succeeding the apostles, in appointing\nofficers over churches, directing them to fit persons, that might be\ncalled to this service, and instructing them how they should behave\nthemselves in that relation; which was necessary, in that they were not\nto expect such extraordinary assistances from the Spirit of God, as the\napostles and the evangelists had received, any more than pastors, and\nother church-officers are to expect them in our day; which leads us to\nconsider the nature, constitution, and government of the churches of\nChrist, in all the ages thereof. And,\n\n1. What we are to understand by a particular church, and what is the\nfoundation thereof. A church is a number of visible professors, called\nto be saints, or, at least, denominated, and, by a judgment of charity,\nesteemed to be saints; united together by consent, in order to their\nhaving communion with one another; and testifying their subjection to\nChrist, and hope of his presence in all his ordinances; designing hereby\nto glorify his name, propagate his gospel and interest in the world, and\npromote their mutual edification in that holy faith, which is founded on\nthe scripture revelation; and in order hereunto they are obliged to call\nand set over them such pastors, and other officers, as God has qualified\nfor that service, to be helpers of their faith, and to endeavour to\npromote their order, whereby the great and valuable ends of the\nchurch-communion may be answered, and God therein be glorified. This\ndescription of a particular church is agreeable to, and founded on\nscripture, as may be easily made appear, by referring to several\nscriptures in the New Testament, relating to this matter. Accordingly we\nread that the members of Christ are characterized as saints by calling,\nor _called to be saints_, Rom. i. 7. and the churches in Macedonia are\nsaid _to give their own selves to the Lord and to the apostles, by the\nwill of God_, 2 Cor. viii. 5. to sit under their ministry, and follow\ntheir directions, so far as they imparted to them the mind of Christ,\nand might be helpers of their faith and order, to his glory; and we read\nof their professed _subjection unto the gospel of Christ_, chap. ix. 13.\nand the church at Ephesus is farther described, as _built upon the\nfoundation of the apostles and prophets_, namely, the doctrines laid\ndown by them, as the only rule of faith and obedience, _Jesus Christ\nhimself being the chief corner-stone_. And as to what respects their\nduty towards one another, they are farther said _to build up themselves\nin their most holy faith, and to keep themselves in the love of God_,\nthat is, to do every thing by the divine assistance, that is necessary\nin order thereunto, _looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto\neternal life_, Jude, ver. 20, 21. or, as it is said elsewhere, to\n_consider one another, to provoke unto love, and to good works, not\nforsaking the assembling of themselves together_, Heb. x. 24, 25.\ninasmuch as this is an instituted means for the answering of that great\nend. Many other scriptures might have been brought to the same purpose,\ntending to prove and illustrate the description of a gospel-church, as\nabove-mentioned.\n\nBut this may be also evinced, in a method of reasoning from the laws of\nsociety, as founded on the law of nature, and applied to a religious\nsociety, which takes its rise from, and is built on divine revelation;\nand, in order hereunto, we shall lay down the following propositions.\n\n(1.) It is agreeable to the law of nature, and the whole tenor of\nscripture, that God should be glorified by social worship, and that all\nthe members of these worshipping societies should endeavour to promote\nthe spiritual interest of one another. Man is, by the excellency of his\nnature, fitted for conversation, and, by his relation to others, who\nhave the same capacities and qualifications, obliged hereunto; and, as\nthe glory of God is the end of his being, it ought to be the end of all\nthose intercourses, which we have with one another; and, as divine\nworship is the highest instance of our glorifying God, so we are, as\nintelligent creatures, obliged to worship him in a social way.\n\n(2.) It is the great design of Christianity to direct us how this social\nworship should be performed by us as Christians, paying a due regard to\nthe gospel, and the glory of the divine perfections, as displayed\ntherein, which is the subject-matter of divine revelation, especially\nthat part thereof from whence the laws of Christian society are taken.\n\n(3.) They who have been made partakers of the grace of God, are obliged,\nout of gratitude to him, the Author thereof, to proclaim his glory to\nthe world; and as the experience thereof, and the obligations persons\nare laid under hereby, is extended to others, as well as ourselves; so\nall, who are under like engagements, ought to be helpers of the faith\nand joy of each other, and to promote their mutual edification and\nsalvation; and, that this may be done,\n\n(4.) It is necessary that they consent, or agree, to have communion with\none another in those duties in which they express their subjection to\nChrist, and desire to wait on him together in all his holy institutions.\n\n(5.) The rule for their direction herein, is contained in scripture,\nwhich sets forth the Mediator\u2019s glory, as King of saints; gives a\nperfect directory for gospel worship, and encouragement to hope for his\npresence therein, whereby it may be attended with its desired success.\n\n(6.) Since Christ, in scripture, has described some persons as qualified\nto assist and direct us in this matter, as well as called them to this\nservice, it is necessary that these religious societies should choose\nand appoint such to preside over them, who are styled pastors, after his\nown heart, that may feed them with knowledge and understanding, whereby\nhis ordinances may be rightly administered, and the ends of\nchurch-communion answered, to his glory, and their mutual advantage.\n\nIn this method of reasoning, the constitution of churches appears to be\nagreeable to the law of nature: nevertheless, we are not to suppose with\nthe Erastians, and others, that the church is wholly founded on the laws\nof civil society, as though Christ had left no certain rule by which it\nwas to be governed, besides those that are common to all societies, as\nan expedient to maintain peace and order among them; for there are other\nends to be answered by church-communion, which are more immediately\nconducive to the glory of Christ and the promoting revealed religion,\nwhich the law of nature, and those laws of society, which are founded\nthereon, can give us no direction in. It is a great dishonour to Christ,\nthe King and Head of his church, to suppose that he has left it without\na rule to direct them, in what respects the communion of saints; as much\nas it would be to assert that he has left it without a rule of faith. If\nGod was so particular in giving directions concerning every part of that\nworship that was to be performed in the church before Christ\u2019s coming,\nso that they are not, on pain of his highest displeasure, to deviate\nfrom it, certainly we must not think that our Saviour has neglected to\ngive these laws, by which the gospel-church is to be governed, which are\ndistinct from what are contained in the law of nature.\n\nAnd, from hence, it may be inferred, that no church, or religious\nsociety of Christians, has power to make laws for its own government, in\nthose things that appertain to, or are to be deemed a part of religious\nworship: I don\u2019t say a church has no power to appoint some discretionary\nrules to be observed by those who are of the same communion, provided\nthey are kept within due bounds, and Christ\u2019s Kingly office be not\nhereby invaded. There is a very great controversy in the world, about\nthe church\u2019s power to decree some things that are styled indifferent;\nbut persons are not generally agreed in determining what they mean by\nindifferent things. Some hereby understand those rites and ceremonies\nthat are used in religious matters, which they call indifferent, because\nthey are of less importance; whereas, by being made terms of communion,\nthey cease to be indifferent; and whether they are of greater or less\nimportance, yet if they respect a necessary mode of worship, conducive\nto the glory of God, so that hereby he is more honoured than he would\nbe, by the neglect of it, this is to carry the idea of indifference too\nfar, and to extend the power of the church beyond its due bounds: for as\nthe terms of communion are only to be fixed by Christ, and the means by\nwhich he is to be glorified, (which have in them the nature of\nordinances, wherein we hope for his presence and blessing) must be\nsought for from him; so the church has not power to ordain, or give a\nsanction to them, without his warrant; therefore, when we speak of those\nindifferent matters, which the church has power to appoint, we mean\nthose things which are no part of religious worship, but merely\ndiscretionary, which may be observed, or not, without any guilt\ncontracted, or censure ensuing hereupon; which leads us to consider,\n\n2. The matter of a church, or the character of those persons who are\nqualified for church-communion. We have already considered the church as\na religious society; it is therefore necessary that all the members\nthereof embrace the true religion, and, in particular, that they deny\nnone of those fundamental articles of faith, which are necessary to\nsalvation. It is not to be supposed that the members of any society have\na perfect unanimity in their sentiments about all religious matters, for\nthat is hardly to be expected in this world; but they are obliged, as\nthe apostles says, _to hold the head, from which all the body, by joints\nand bands, having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth\nwith the increase of God_, Col. ii. 19. and publicly to avow, or\nmaintain, no doctrine subversive of the foundation on which the church\nis built. Revealed religion centres in Christ, and is referred to his\nglory, as Mediator; therefore every member of a church ought to profess\ntheir faith in him, and willingness to own him, as their Lord and\nLaw-giver, and to give him the glory that is due to him, as a divine\nPerson, and as one who is appointed to execute the offices of Prophet,\nPriest, and King. The apostle gives a short, but very comprehensive\ndescription of those who are fit matter for a church, when he says, _We\nare the circumcision which worship God in the Spirit, and rejoice in\nChrist Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh_, Phil. iii. 3. It\nfollows, from hence, that every religious society is not a church; for\nfalse religions have been propagated among the Heathen, and others, in\ndistinct societies of those who performed religious worship; but yet\nthey had no relation to Christ, and therefore not reckoned among his\nchurches.\n\nOn the other hand, we cannot determine concerning every member of a\nparticular church, that his heart is right with God; for that is a\nprerogative that belongs only to the Searcher of hearts; it is the\nexternal profession that is our rule of judging All are not in a state\nof salvation, who are church-members; as the apostle says, _They are not\nall Israel which are of Israel_, Rom. ix. 6. He makes a distinction\nbetween a real subjection unto Christ by faith, and a professed\nsubjection to him: as he says, concerning the church of the Jews, _He is\nnot a Jew which is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is\noutward in the flesh; but he is a Jew which is one inwardly, and\ncircumcision is that of the heart in the Spirit, and not in the letter,\nwhose praise is not of men, but of God_, chap. ii. 28, 29. nevertheless,\nthey were all church-members, professedly or apparently devoted to God.\nConcerning such, we are bound, by a judgment of charity, to conclude,\nthat they are what they profess themselves to be, till their\nconversation plainly gives the lye to their profession. The visible\nchurch is compared to the _net_, that had _good and bad fish_ in it,\nMatt. xiii. 47. or to the _great house_, in which are _vessels_ of\nvarious kinds; _some to honour, and some to dishonour_, 2 Tim. ii. 20.\nsome fit for the master\u2019s use, others to be broken, as _vessels wherein\nis no pleasure_, Jer. xxii. 28. some are sincere, others hypocrites:\nnevertheless, till their hypocrisy is made manifest, they are supposed\nto be fit matter for a church.\n\n3. We are now to consider the form, or bond of union, whereby they are\nincorporated into a society, and so denominated a church of Christ. It\nis neither the profession of faith, nor a conversation agreeable\nthereunto, that constitutes a person a member of a particular church;\nfor, according to the laws of society, there must be a mutual consent to\nwalk together, to have communion one with another in all the ordinances\nwhich Christ has established. As the materials, of which a building\nconsists, do not constitute that building, unless they are cemented and\njoined together; so the union of professing Christians, whereby they are\njoined together, and become one body, by mutual consent, is necessary to\nconstitute them a church, as much as their professed subjection to\nChrist to denominate them a church of Christ. Hereby they become a\nconfederate body; and as every one, in a private capacity, was before\nengaged to perform those duties which are incumbent on all men, as\nChristians, now they bring themselves, pursuant to Christ\u2019s appointment,\nunder an obligation to endeavour, by the assistance of divine grace, to\nwalk becoming the relation they stand in to each other; or, as the\napostle expresses himself, _Building up themselves on their most holy\nfaith_, Jude, ver. 20. whereby the ends of Christian society may be\nanswered, and the glory of Christ secured; and they have ground to\nexpect his presence in waiting on him in all his holy institutions. By\nthis means they, who were before considered as fit matter for it, are\nsaid to be united together, as a church of Christ. But, inasmuch as this\nprincipally respects the foundation, or erection of churches, there are\nother things necessary for their increase, and the maintaining that\npurity, which is the glory thereof, and thereby preventing their\ncontracting that guilt which would otherwise ensue; which leads us to\nconsider,\n\n4. The power which he has given them, and the rules which he has laid\ndown, which are to be observed by them in the admission to, and\nexclusion of persons from church-communion. And,\n\n(1.) As to what respects the admission of members, that may fill up the\nplaces of those, whose relation to them is dissolved by death. Here we\nmust consider, that it is highly reasonable that they should have all\nthe satisfaction that is necessary, concerning the fitness of those for\nit, who are to be admitted into church-communion; and also enquire what\nterms, or conditions, are to be insisted on, and complied with, in order\nthereunto. We must not suppose that these are arbitrary, or such as a\nchurch shall please to impose; for it is no more in their power to make\nterms of communion, than it is to make a rule of faith, or worship. In\nthis, a church differs from a civil society, where the terms of\nadmission into it are arbitrary, provided they do not interfere with any\nof the laws of God, or man: but the terms of Christian communion are\nfixed by Christ, the Head of his church; and therefore no society of men\nhave a right to make the door of admission into their own communion\nstraighter or wider than Christ has made it.\n\nThis is a matter in which some of the reformed churches differ among\nthemselves, though the dissention ought not to arise so high as to cause\nany alienation of affection, or any degree of uncharitableness, so as to\noccasion any to think, that because they do not, in all things, agree,\nas to this matter, therefore they ought to treat one another as those\nwho hold the head, and are designing to advance the interest of Christ,\nin the various methods they are pursuing, in order thereunto. I think it\nis allowed, by most of the churches of Christ, at least those who\nsuppose that persons have no right to church-communion, without the\nconsent of that particular society, of which any one is to be made a\nmember, that nothing short of a professed subjection to Christ, and a\ndesire to adhere to him in all his offices, as well as worship him in\nall his ordinances, can be reckoned a term of church-communion. For we\nsuppose the church to be built upon this foundation; and nothing short\nof it can sufficiently set forth the glory of Christ, as the Head\nthereof, or to answer the valuable ends of church-communion. Therefore\nit follows from hence, that as ignorance of the way of salvation by\nJesus Christ, disqualifies for church-communion; so do immoralities in\nconversation, both of which denominate a person to be alienated from the\nlife of God, a stranger to the covenant of promise, and in subjection to\nSatan, the god of this world, which is inconsistent with a professed\nsubjection to Christ. Therefore a mind rightly informed in the great\ndoctrines of the gospel, with a conduct of life answerable thereunto, is\nto be insisted on, as a term of church-communion.\n\nBut that in which the sentiments of men are different, is with respect\nto the way and manner in which this is to be rendered visible, and\nwhether some things that are merely circumstantial, are to be insisted\non, as terms of communion.\n\n_1st_, As to the former of these. That those qualifications, which are\nnecessary to church-communion, ought to be, some way or other, made\nvisible, this is taken for granted by many on both sides; and, indeed,\nwithout it the church could not be called _visible_, or a society of\nsuch as profess the true religion, and, together with it, their\nsubjection to Christ. And, this, in a more especial manner, must be made\nknown to them, who are to hold communion with them, as called to be\nsaints; which cannot, from the nature of the thing, be done, unless it\nbe, some way or other made to appear. If it be said, that there is no\noccasion for this to be explicit, or the profession hereof to be made\nany otherwise, than as their relation to a church denominates them to be\nvisible professors; this is only a presumptive evidence that they are\nso, and does not sufficiently distinguish them from the world,\nespecially from that part of it, which makes an outward shew of\nreligion, and attend on several branches of public worship. This is\ncertainly very remote from the character given of all those churches\nwhich we have an account of in the New Testament, concerning some of\nwhom the apostle says, that _their faith_ was not only known to that\nparticular society to which they belonged, but it was _spread abroad_,\nor _spoken of throughout the whole world_, 1 Thes. i. 8. compared with\nRom. i. 8. This it could never have been, if they, who were more\nimmediately concerned to know it, had received no other conviction than\nwhat is the result of their joining with them in some external acts of\nworship.\n\nAnd it may also be inferred, from what is generally allowed, by those\nwho explain the nature of the Lord\u2019s supper, which is a\nchurch-ordinance, and lay down the qualifications of those who are\ndeemed fit to partake of it; particularly that they are under an\nobligation to examine themselves, not only concerning their knowledge to\ndiscern the Lord\u2019s body, but their faith to feed on him, their\nrepentance, love, and new obedience, trusting in his mercy, and\nrejoicing in his love; and they assent the necessity of their renewing\nthe exercise of those graces, which may render them meet for this\nordinance.[275] And this is consonant to the practice of many of the\nreformed churches, who will not admit any into their communion, without\nreceiving satisfaction, as to their having these qualifications for this\nordinance. And, since the matter in controversy with them principally\nrespects the manner in which this is to be given, and the concern of the\nchurch herein, we may take occasion to infer, from hence, that there is\nthe highest reason that the church should receive satisfaction, as well\nas those who preside over it; inasmuch as they are obliged, in\nconscience, to have communion with them, and reckon them among the\nnumber of those who have been made partakers of the grace of Christ,\nwhich they cannot well be said to do, unless this be, some way or other,\nmade visible to them; which leads us to consider,\n\n_2dly_, The manner in which this profession is to be made visible,\nnamely, whether it is to be done by every one in his own person; or a\nreport hereof by another in his name, may be deemed sufficient. This I\ncan reckon no other than a circumstance; and therefore one of these ways\nis not so far to be insisted on, as that a person should be denied this\nprivilege, (whose qualifications for it are not be questioned) because\nhe is unwilling to comply with it, as thinking that the main end\ndesigned thereby may be as effectually answered by the other. If a\nperson be duly qualified, as the apostle says concerning Timothy, to\n_make a good profession before many witnesses_, 1 Tim. vi. 12. and this\nmay not only have a tendency to answer the end of giving satisfaction to\nthem, but be an expedient, in an uncommon degree, to promote their\nedification; if he have something remarkable to impart, and desire to\nbear his testimony to the grace of God, which he has experienced, in his\nown person, and thereby to induce others to join with him in giving him\nthe glory of it, there is no law of God, or nature that prohibits, or\nforbids him to do it; nor ought this to be censured, as though it could\nnot be done, without its being liable to the common imputation, as\nthough pride must be the necessary inducement leading him thereunto; for\nthat is such an instance of censure and reproach, as is unbecoming\nChristians, especially when it is alleged as an universal exception\nagainst it. Nevertheless, I am far from pleading for this, as a\nnecessary term of communion; nor do I think that a person\u2019s desire to\ngive the church satisfaction, in such a way, ought always to be complied\nwith; since whatever occasion some may suppose they have for it, all are\nnot fit to do it, in such a way, as may tend to the church\u2019s\nedification. There are various other ways by which a church may know,\nthat those who are proposed to its communion have a right to it, which I\nforbear to mention; but one of them is not to be so far insisted on, as\nthat a bare refusal to comply with it rather than another, provided the\ngeneral end be answered, should debar a person otherwise qualified for\nit, from church-communion. The church being thus satisfied, he is joined\nto it by their consent, and is hereby laid under equal engagements with\nthem, to walk in all the ordinances and commandments of the Lord\nblameless. And this leads us to consider,\n\n(2.) The exclusion of members from church-communion. This is agreeable\nto the laws of society, as well as their admission into it; and hereby a\nbecoming zeal is expressed for the glory of God, and a public testimony\ngiven against those who discover the insincerity of their professed\nsubjection to Christ, which was the ground and reason of their being\nadmitted into that relation, which now they appear to have forfeited,\nthis leads us to consider,\n\n_First_, That the church has a right to exclude those from its communion\nwho appear to be unqualified for it, or a reproach to it; under which\nhead, I cannot but take notice of the opinion of the Erastians, that a\nchurch has no power, distinct from the civil government, to exclude\npersons from its communion. This was advanced by Erastus, a physician in\nGermany, soon after the beginning of the reformation: and that, which\nseems to have given occasion hereunto, was the just prejudice which he\nentertained against the Popish doctrine, concerning the independency of\nthe church upon the state; which was then, and is at this day,\nmaintained, and abused to such a degree, that if a clergyman insults the\ngovernment, and sets himself at the head of a rebellion against his\nlawful prince, or is guilty of any other enormous crimes, he flies to\nthe church for protection, and generally finds it there, especially if\nthe king should, in any respect, disoblige them, or refuse to lay his\ncrown at their feet, if they desire it: this, I say, was a just\nprejudice, which gave the first rise to this opinion, in which, opposing\none extreme the first founder of it ran into another.\n\nThe argument, by which it is generally supported, is, that this tends to\nerect, or set up one government in another:[276] but this is not\ncontrary to the law of nature and nations, when a smaller government is\nnot co-ordinate with the other, but allowed and protected by it: the\ngovernment of a family or corporation, must be acknowledged, by all, to\nbe a smaller government included in a greater; but will any one deny\nthat these are inconsistent with it? May not a master admit into, or\nexclude, whom he pleases from being members of his family? or a\ncorporation make those by-laws, by which it is governed, without being\nsupposed to interfere with the civil government? And, by a parity of\nreason, may not a church, pursuant not only to the laws of society, but\nthe rule which Christ has given, exclude members from its communion,\nwithout being supposed to subvert the fundamental laws of civil\ngovernment? We do not deny, but that if the church should pretend to\ninflict corporal punishments on its members, or make use of the civil\nsword which is committed into the hand of the magistrate; or if it\nshould act contrary to the laws of Christ, by defending, encouraging, or\nabetting those who are enemies to the civil government, or excluding\nthem from those privileges, which the laws of the land give them a right\nto; this would be a notoriously unwarrantable instance of erecting one\ngovernment in another, subversive of it: but this is not the design of\nexcommunication, as it is one of those ordinances which Christ has given\nto his church.\n\n_Secondly_, We are now to consider the causes of inflicting this censure\non persons; and these are no other than those things which, had they\nbeen before known, would have been a bar to their being admitted to\nchurch-communion. And therefore when a person is guilty of those crimes,\nwhich, had they been known before, he ought not to have been received;\nwhen these are made to appear, he is deemed unqualified for that\nprivilege which he was before admitted to partake of; on which account\nwe generally say, that every one first excludes himself, by being guilty\nof those crimes that disqualify him for church-communion, before he is\nto be excluded from it, by the sentence of the church. But that we may\nbe a little more particular on this subject, let us consider,\n\n_1st_, That they who disturb the tranquillity of the church, by the\nuneasiness of their temper, or who are not only unwilling to comply with\nthe method of its government, but endeavour to make others so: or who\nare restless in their attempt to bring innovations into it, or propagate\ndoctrines which are contrary to scripture, and the general faith of the\nchurch, founded thereon; though these be not directly subversive of the\ngospel, yet, inasmuch as the persons are not satisfied in retaining\ntheir own sentiments, without giving disturbance to others, who cannot\nadhere to them; such, I think, ought to be separated from the communion\nof the church, purely out of a principle of self-preservation, though it\nbe not their immediate duty to judge the state, so much as the temper of\npersons, whom they withdraw from.\n\n_2dly_, If a person propagate a doctrine subversive of the gospel, or\nthat faith on which the church is founded, he is to be excluded. It is\nsuch an one, as I humbly conceive, whom the apostle styles an _heretic_,\nand advises Titus _to reject him_, and speaks of him as _one that is\nsubverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself_, Tit. iii. 10, 11.\nSome think, that the person here spoken of, is one who pretends to\nbelieve one doctrine, but really believes another which is of a most\npernicious tendency, and therefore is to be rejected, not for his\nsentiments, but his insincerity, and, upon this account, he is said to\nbe _self-condemned_[277]. But I cannot acquiesce in this sense of the\ntext; for, though there may be some in the world who think, to find\ntheir account, gain popular applause, or, some way or other, serve their\nworldly interest, by pretending to believe those doctrines which they\nreally deny; yet this cannot be truly said of the person, whom the\napostle, in this scripture, describes as an _heretic_: he is, indeed,\nrepresented as inconsistent with himself; and this is supposed to be\nknown, and alleged, as an aggravation of the charge on which his\nexpulsion from that religious society, of which he was a member, is\nfounded: but did ever any man propagate one doctrine, and tell the world\nthat he believed another, so that he might, for this, be convicted as an\nhypocrite? And certainly this could not be known without his own\nconfession, and the church could not censure him for it, but upon\nsufficient evidence. If it be said, that they might know this by divine\ninspiration, which, it is true, they were favoured with in that age, in\nwhich, among other extraordinary gifts, they had that of _discerning of\nspirits_; it is greatly to be questioned, whether ever they proceeded\nagainst any one upon such extraordinary intimations, without some\napparent matter of accusation, which was known by those who had not this\nextraordinary gift; for, if they had a liberty to proceed against\npersons in such a way, why did not our Saviour reject Judas, who was one\nof that society that attended on his ministry, when he knew him to be an\nhypocrite, or _self-condemned_, in a most notorious degree, yet he did\nnot; and the reason, doubtless, was, because he designed that his\nchurches, in succeeding ages, should, in all their judicial proceedings,\ngo upon other evidence, which might easily be known by all, when they\nexpelled any one from their communion.\n\nBesides, if this be the sense of the text, and the ground on which\npersons are to be rejected, then no one can be known to be\nself-condemned now; for we have no such extraordinary intimations\nthereof, since miraculous gifts are ceased: and is there any thing\ninstituted as essential to the church\u2019s proceedings, in the methods of\ntheir government, which could not be put in practice, except in the\napostolic age? and, if so, then having recourse to extraordinary\ndiscerning of spirits, as a foundation of this procedure, will not serve\nthe purpose for which it is alleged.\n\nIt must therefore be concluded, that the person here said to be\n_self-condemned_, was not deemed so, because he pretended to hold that\nfaith which he really denied; but because his present professed\nsentiments were the reverse of what he had before pretended to hold,\nwhich was a term on which he was admitted into the church; and in this\nsense he is said to be _self-condemned_, as his present errors contained\na contradiction to that faith which he then professed, in common with\nthe rest of that society, of which he was admitted a member.\n\n_3dly_, Persons are to be excluded from church-communion for immoral\npractices, which not only contradict their professed subjection to\nChrist, but argue them to be in an unconverted state. When they were\nfirst received into the church, they were supposed, by a judgment of\ncharity, to be Christ\u2019s subjects and servants: their own profession,\nwhich was not then contradicted by any apparant blemishes in their\nconversation, was the foundation of this opinion, which the church was\nthen bound to entertain concerning them; but, when they are guilty of\nany crimes, which are contrary to their professed subjection to Christ,\nthe church is to take away the privilege which they had before granted\nthem; for hereby they appear to be disqualified for their communion; and\nthis is necessary, inasmuch as, by it, they express a just detestation\nof every thing that would be a reproach to them, or an instance of\ndisloyalty to, or rebellion against Christ, their Head and Saviour.\n\n(3.) We are now to speak concerning the method of proceeding in\nexcluding persons from church-communion. We must consider this as a\njudicial act, and therefore not to be done without trying and judging\nimpartially the merits of the cause. A crime committed is supposed to be\nfirst known by particular persons, who are members of the church; or if\nany injury be done, whereby another has received just matter of offence,\nhe is supposed to be first apprised of it, before it be brought before\nthe church. In this case, our Saviour has expressly given direction\nconcerning the method in which he is to proceed when he says, _If thy\nbrother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault, between\nthee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother:\nbut if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that,\nin the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word may be established.\nAnd if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he\nneglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an Heathen-man, and\na Publican_, Matt. xviii. 15-17. If this scripture be rightly\nunderstood, it will give great light to the method of proceeding in this\nmatter.\n\nAnd here we must consider, that the crime is called a _trespass_, and\naccordingly is, in some respects, injurious to others, whereby the\noffender contracts some degree of guilt, which he is to be reproved for,\notherwise there would be no room for a private rebuke, or admonition, in\norder to bring him to repentance; nor, upon his obstinate refusal\nthereof, would the church have ground to proceed in excluding him from\nits communion: nevertheless, we are not to suppose the crime to be of\nsuch a nature, as is, in itself, inconsistent with a state of grace, or\naffords matter of open scandal to the Christian name; as if a person\nwere guilty of adultery, theft, or some other notorious crime; for, in\nthis case, it would not be sufficient for the person, who is apprised of\nit, to give him a friendly and gentle reproof; so that, upon his\nconfessing his fault, and repenting of it, all farther proceedings\nagainst him ought to be stopped; for herein, I humbly conceive, that he\nthat has received information concerning it, ought to make it known to\nthe church, that so the matter might not only be fully charged upon him,\nbut his repentance be as visible, as the scandal he has brought to\nreligion, by his crime, has been. If I know a person to be a traitor to\nhis Prince, a murderer, or guilty of any other crime, whereby he has\nforfeited his life, it is not sufficient for me to reprove him privately\nfor it, in order to bring him to repentance; but I must discover it to\nproper persons, that he may be brought to condign punishment: So, in\nthis case, if a person be guilty of a crime, that in itself disqualifies\nfor church-communion, and brings a reproach on the ways of God, the\nchurch ought to express their public resentment against it, which will\ntend to secure the honour of religion; and therefore it ought to be\nbrought before them immediately, and they to proceed against him, by\nexcluding him from their communion; though, for the present, he seem to\nexpress some degree of sorrow for his crime, as being made public; and\nif they judge that his repentance is sincere, and the world has\nsufficient ground to conclude it to be so, then they may express their\nforgiveness thereof, and so withdraw the censure they have passed upon\nhim.\n\nBut, in crimes of a lesser nature than these, a private admonition ought\nto be given; and if this be to no purpose, but the person go on in sin,\nwhereby it appears to be habitual, and his repentance not sincere, after\nthis, the cause is to be brought before the church; but, in order\nhereunto, the person that first reproved him, must take one or two more,\nthat they may join in the second reproof; and, if all this be to no\npurpose, then they are to appear as evidences against him, and the\nchurch is to give him a public admonition; and, if this solemn ordinance\nprove ineffectual, then he is to be excluded, and his exclusion is\nstyled his _being to them as an Heathen-man, or Publican_, that is, they\nhave no farther relation to him any more than they have to the _Heathen_\nor _Publicans_, or no immediate care of him, any otherwise than as they\nare to desire to know whether this censure be blessed for his advantage.\nAnd this leads us,\n\n(4.) To consider the temper with which this censure ought to be\ndenounced, and the consequences thereof, with respect to him that falls\nunder it. The same frame of spirit ought to discover itself in this, as\nin all other reproofs, for sin committed, in which there ought to be a\nzeal expressed for the glory of God, and, at the same time, compassion\nto the souls of them, who have rendered themselves obnoxious to it,\nwithout the least degree of hatred redounding to their persons. The\ncrime is to be aggravated in proportion to the nature thereof, that so\nhe that has committed it may be brought under conviction, and be humbled\nfor his sin, and yet he is to be made sensible that his spiritual\nadvantage is intended thereby.\n\nThis is very contrary to those methods which were taken in the corrupt\nstate of the Jewish church, who, when they excommunicated persons,\ndenounced several curses against them; and their behaviour consequent\nthereupon, was altogether unjustifiable. We have an account, in some of\ntheir writings, of two degrees of excommunication practised among them,\none of which only deprived them of some privileges which that church\nenjoyed, but not of all. Another carried in it more terror, by reason of\nseveral _anathemas_ annexed to it, which contained a great abuse and\nperversion of the design of that law relating to the curses that were to\nbe denounced on mount Ebal, mentioned in Deut. xxvii. which was not\ngiven as a form, to be used in excommunication, but to shew them what\nsin deserved, and that this might be an expedient to prevent those sins,\nwhich would expose them to the divine wrath and curse[278]. And though\nthey pretend to have a warrant for this from Deborah, and Barak\u2019s\n_cursing Meroz_, Judges v. 23. or Joshua\u2019s denouncing _a curse_ upon him\nthat should rebuild _Jericho_, Joshua vi. 26. yet this does not give\ncountenance to their proceedings herein; for we must distinguish between\nthose _anathemas_, which were denounced by immediate divine direction,\nby some that had the spirit of prophecy, and those curses which were\ndenounced by others who were altogether destitute thereof[279].\n\nMoreover, as the Jews, in the degenerate ages of that church, abused the\nordinance of excommunication, as above-mentioned; so they discovered\nsuch a degree of hatred to those whom they excommunicated, as ought not\nto be expressed to the vilest of men. An instance of this we have in\ntheir behaviour towards the Samaritans, who, according to the account we\nhave from Jewish writers, were excommunicated in Ezra\u2019s time, for\nbuilding a temple on mount Gerizzim, and setting up corrupt worship\nthere, in opposition to that which ought to have been performed in the\ntemple at Jerusalem. For this they were justly excluded from the Jewish\nchurch[280]; but their morose behaviour towards them was unwarrantable.\nThat there was an irreconcilable enmity between them, appears from the\nwoman of Samaria\u2019s answer to our Saviour, when desiring her to give him\nwater; from whence it is evident that he was far from approving of this\nbehaviour of the Jews towards them: the woman was amazed that he should\nask water of her, and hereupon says to him, _How is it, that thou, being\na Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews\nhave no dealings with the Samaritans_, John iv. 9. that is, they retain\nthat old rancour and prejudice against them, that they will not have any\ndealings with them which contain the least obligation on either side.\nThese things were consequences of excommunication which they had no\nground for in scripture.\n\nAs for the Christian church, they seem to have followed the Jews too\nmuch in that, in which they are not to be imitated. Hence arose the\ndistinction between the greater and the lesser excommunication, which is\nagreeable, though expressed in other words, to that which was before\nmentioned; and those _anathemas_, which were denounced against persons\nexcommunicated by them, how much soever it might have argued their zeal\nagainst the crimes they committed, yet it is no example for us to\nfollow. It is beyond dispute, that they endeavour to make this censure\nas much dreaded as was possible, to deter men from committing those\ncrimes that might deserve it. Tertullian calls it, _An anticipation of\nthe future judgment_[281]; and Cyprian supposes such an one to _be far\nfrom a state of salvation_[282].\n\nAnd some have supposed, that persons, when excommunicated, were\npossessed by the devil, which they conclude to be the sense of the\napostle, 1 Cor. v. 5. when he speaks of _delivering_ such _unto\nSatan_[283]; and that Satan actually seized, and took possession of\nthem; and that God granted this as an expedient, to strike a terror into\nthe minds of men, to prevent many sins being committed; and that this\nwas more necessary at that time, when they were destitute of the\nassistance of the civil magistrate, who took no care to defend the\nchurch, or to punish those crimes that were committed by its members:\nbut I cannot think that there was ever such a power granted to the\nchurch, how much soever the necessity of affairs be supposed to require\nit. We read nothing of it in the writings of those Fathers, who lived in\nthe early ages thereof; such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, or\nCyprian, who would, doubtless, have taken some notice of this\nextraordinary miraculous punishment attending excommunication, had there\nbeen any such thing. Some of them, indeed, speak of the church\u2019s being\nfavoured, in some instances, with the extraordinary gift of miracles,\nand particularly that of casting out devils, after the apostles\u2019\ntime;[284] but we have no account of the devil\u2019s possessing any, upon\ntheir being cast out of the church.\n\nWe read, in scripture, of delivering a person excommunicated to Satan, 1\nCor. v. 5. but I cannot think that the apostle intends any more by it,\nthan his being declared to be in Satan\u2019s kingdom, that is in the world,\nwhere he rules over the children of disobedience; and, if his crime be\nso great, as is inconsistent with a state of grace, he must, without\ndoubt, be reckoned a servant of Satan, and, in this sense, be delivered\nto him. And there is a particular end thereof, mentioned by the apostle,\nnamely, _The destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in\nthe day of the Lord Jesus_; so that the person\u2019s good is to be intended\nby it, that he may be humbled, brought to repentance, and afterwards\nreceived again into the bosom of the church.\n\nThus we have considered the general description of a church, the matter\nand form thereof, and the power granted them of receiving persons into,\nor excluding them from communion. Now from hence we may infer,\n\n_1st_, That nearness of habitation, how much soever it may contribute to\nanswer some ends of church-communion, which cannot be attained by those\nwho live many miles distant from each other, is not sufficient to\nconstitute persons church-members, or to give them a right to the\nprivileges that attend such a relation. Parochial churches have no\nfoundation in scripture, for they want both the matter and form of a\nchurch; nor are they any other than a human constitution.\n\n_2dly,_ The scripture gives no account of the church, as National or\nProvincial; and therefore, though persons have a right to many civil\nprivileges, as born in particular nations, or provinces, it does not\nfollow from thence, that they are professedly subjects to Christ, or\nunited together in the bonds of the gospel. Therefore if a church, that\nstyles itself National, excludes persons from its communion, whether it\nbe for real or supposed crimes, it takes away that right which it had no\npower to confer, but what is founded on the laws of men, which are very\ndistinct from those which Christ has given to his churches. And this\nleads us,\n\n5. To consider the government of the church, by those officers which\nChrist has appointed therein. Tyranny and anarchy are extremes,\ninconsistent with the good of civil society, and contrary to the law of\nnature, and are sufficiently fenced against by the government which\nChrist has established in his church: he has appointed officers to\nsecure the peace and order thereof, and has limited their power, and\ngiven directions that concern the exercise thereof, that so it may be\ngoverned without oppression, its religious rights maintained, the glory\nof God, and the mutual edification of its members hereby promoted.\n\nWe have already considered those extraordinary officers which Christ set\nover the gospel-church, when it was first constituted, namely, the\napostles and evangelists:[285] But, besides these, there are others\nwhich he has given to his churches; and these either such as are\nappointed to bear rule, more especially, in what respects the promoting\ntheir faith and order, who are styled Pastors and Elders; of others, who\nhave the oversight of the secular affairs of the church, and the trust\nof providing for the necessities of the poor committed to them, who are\ncalled Deacons.\n\nConcerning the former of these, to wit, Pastors and Elders, we often\nread of them in the New Testament: nevertheless, all are not agreed in\ntheir sentiments, as to one particular relating hereunto, namely,\nwhether the Elders spoken of in scripture are distinct officers from\nPastors; or, whether Christ has appointed two sorts of them, to wit,\npreaching and ruling Elders? Some think the apostle distinguishes\nbetween them, when he says, _Let the elders that rule well be counted\nworthy of double honour, especially those who labour in the word and\ndoctrine_, 1 Tim. v. 17. the _double honour_ here intended seems to be\nnot only civil respect, but maintenance, as appears from the following\nwords, _Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn; and the\nlabourer is worthy of his reward_. Now these suppose that this\nmaintenance belongs only to such as _labour in word and doctrine_, and\nnot to those other Elders, who are said to _rule well_; therefore there\nare elders that _rule well_, distinct from those that _labour in word\nand doctrine_.\n\nOthers, indeed, think, that the apostle, in this text speaks only of the\nlatter sort, and then the stress of his argument is laid principally on\nthe word _Labouring_, q. d. Let every one who preaches the gospel, and\npresides over the church, have that honour conferred on him that is his\ndue; but let this be greater in proportion to the pains and diligence\nthat he expresses for the church\u2019s edification.\n\nNevertheless, I cannot but think, since it is agreeable to the laws of\nsociety, and not in the least repugnant to any thing we read, in\nscripture, concerning the office of an Elder, that, in case of\nemergency, when the necessity of the church requires it, or when the\nwork of preaching and ruling is too much for a Pastor, the church being\nvery numerous, it is advisable that some should be chosen from among\nthemselves to assist him in managing the affairs of government and\nperforming some branches of his office, distinct from that of preaching,\nwhich these are not called to do, as not being qualified for it: these\nare helpers or assistants in government; and their office may have in it\na very great expediency, as in the multitude of counsellers there is\nsafety, and the direction and advice of those who are men of prudence\nand esteem in the church, will be very conducive to maintain its peace\nand order: but I cannot think that this office is necessary in smaller\nchurches, in which the Pastors need not their assistance. And this leads\nus to speak concerning the office of a Pastor, which consists of two\nbranches, namely, preaching the word, and administring the sacraments on\nthe one hand; and performing the office of a ruling Elder on the other.\n\n_1st_, We may consider him as qualified and called to preach the gospel.\nThis is an honourable and important work, and has always been reckoned\nso, by those who have had any concern for the promoting the glory of God\nin the world. The apostle Paul was very thankful to Christ that he\nconferred this honour upon him, or, as he expresses it, that _he counted\nhim faithful and put him into the ministry_, chap. i. 12. and elsewhere\nhe concludes, that it is necessary, that they, who engage in this work,\nbe sent by God; _How shall they preach except they be sent?_ Rom. x. 15.\nThis is a necessary pre-requisite to the pastoral-office, as much as\nspeech is necessary to an orator, or conduct to a governor:\nnevertheless, a person may be employed, in the work of the ministry, who\nis not a pastor; these may be reckoned, if they discharge the work they\nare called to, faithfully, a blessing to the world, and a valuable part\nof the church\u2019s treasure; yet considered as distinct from Pastors, they\nare not reckoned among its officers. This is a subject that very well\ndeserves our consideration: but, inasmuch as we have an account\nelsewhere[286] of the qualifications and call of ministers to preach the\ngospel, and the manner in which this is to be done, we pass it over, at\npresent, and proceed,\n\n_2dly_, To consider a minister, as invested in the pastoral office, and\nso related to a particular church. The characters by which such, who are\ncalled to it, are described, in the New Testament, besides that of a\nPastor, are a Bishop or Overseer, a Presbyter or Elder, who labours in\nword and doctrine.\n\nThe world, it is certain, is very much divided in their sentiments about\nthis matter, some concluding that a Bishop is not only distinct from,\nbut superior, both in order and degree to those who are styled\nPresbyters or Elders; whereas, others think, that there is either no\ndifference between them, or, at least, that it is not so great, as that\nthey should be reckoned distinct officers in a church. The account we\nhave, in scripture, of this matter seems to be somewhat different from\nwhat were the sentiments of the church in following ages. Sometimes we\nread of several Bishops in one church: thus the apostle, writing to the\nchurch at Philippi, directs his epistle to the Bishops and Deacons,\nPhil. i. 1. and elsewhere he seems to call the same persons Bishops and\nElders, or Presbyters; for it is said, that he sent to Ephesus, _and\ncalled together the Elders of the church_, Acts xx. 17. and advises them\n_to take heed to themselves, and to all the flock over whom the Holy\nGhost had made them Overseers_, or Bishops, ver. 28. and, at another\ntime, he charges Titus _to ordain elders_, or Presbyters, _in every\ncity_; and then gives the character of those whom he was to ordain,\nbidding him take care that they were blameless, and had other\nqualifications, necessary for this office; and, in assigning a reason\nfor this, he adds, _For a Bishop must be blameless_, &c. where, it is\nplain, the word Elder and Bishop are indifferently used by him, as\nrespecting the same person. And the apostle Peter 1 Pet. v. 1. addresses\nhimself to the Elders of the churches, to whom he writes, styling\nhimself _an Elder together with them_;[287] and, besides this, _a\nwitness of the sufferings of Christ_, which was his character, as an\napostle. And he exhorts them to perform the office of Bishops, or\nOverseers,[288] as the word, which we render _Taking the Oversight_,\nsignifies; from whence it is evident, that Elders and Presbyters had the\ncharacter of Bishops, from the work they were to perform.\n\nMoreover, that venerable assembly, that met at Jerusalem, to discuss an\nimportant question brought before them by Paul and Barnabas, is said to\nconsist of the Apostles and Elders, Acts xv. 6. Now, if Bishops had\nbeen, not only distinct from, but a superior order to that of Elders,\nthey would have been here mentioned as such, and, doubtless, have met\ntogether with them; but it seems probable that they are included in the\ngeneral character of Elders. Some think, that the same persons are\ncalled Bishops, because they had the oversight of their respective\nchurches; and Elders, because they were qualified for this work, by that\nage and experience which they had, for the most part arrived to; as the\nword Elder signifies not only one that is invested in an office,[289]\nbut one who, by reason of his age, and that wisdom that often attends\nit, is fitted to discharge it, 1 Tim. v. 1.\n\nWe read nothing in scripture, of Diocesan churches, or Bishops over\nthem, how much soever this was pleaded for in many following ages; and\nthey, who maintain this argument, generally have recourse to the\nwritings of the Fathers, and church-historians, which, were the proofs,\ntaken from thence, more strong and conclusive than they are, would not\nbe sufficient to support the divine right thereof. I shall not enlarge\non this particular branch of the controversy, inasmuch as it has been\nhandled with a great deal of learning and judgment, by many others,[290]\nwho refer to the writings of the Fathers of the three first centuries,\nto prove that churches were no larger in those times than one person\ncould have the oversight of, and that these chose their own Bishops.\nSome think, indeed, that there is ground to conclude, from what we find\nin the writings of Ignatius, Tertullian, Cyprian, and other Fathers in\nthese ages, that there was a superiority of Bishops to Presbyters, at\nleast, in degree, though not in order; and that the Presbyter performed\nall the branches of that work, that properly belonged to Bishops, only\nwith this difference, that it was done with their leave, or by their\norder, or in their absence; and there being several Elders in the same\nchurch, when a Bishop died, one of those were ready to succeed him in\nthat office.\n\nSome, indeed, speak of the church as Parochial, and contradistinguished\nfrom Diocesan; but, inasmuch as it does not appear, by their writings,\nthat these Parochial churches had any other bond of union, but nearness\nof habitation, I cannot so readily conclude, that their church-state\ndepended principally on this political circumstance; but rather that\nChristians thought it most convenient for such to enter into a\nchurch-relation, who, by reason of the nearness of their situation to\neach other, could better perform the duties that were incumbent on them,\npursuant hereunto.\n\nBut, notwithstanding this, it appears from several things occasionally\nmentioned by the Fathers, that the church admitted none into its\ncommunion, but those whom they judged qualified for it, and that not\nonly by understanding the doctrines of Christianity, but by a\nconversation becoming their profession thereof; and it was a\nconsiderable time that they remained in a state of probation, being\nadmitted to attend on the prayers and instructions of the church, but\nordered to withdraw before the Lord\u2019s supper was administered: these are\nsometimes called Hearers by Cyprian; at other times, Candidates, but\nmost commonly Catechumens. And there were persons appointed not only to\ninstruct them but to examine what proficiency they made in religion, in\norder to their being received into the church. In this state of trial\nthey continued generally two or three years[291]; such care they took\nthat persons might not deceive themselves, and the church, by joining in\ncommunion with it, without having those qualifications that are\nnecessary thereunto. This is very different from parochial churches, as\nunderstood and defended by many in our day. Therefore when churches were\ncalled parishes, in the three first centuries, it was only a\ncircumstantial description thereof.\n\nIn every one of these churches there was one who was called a bishop, or\noverseer, with a convenient number of elders or presbyters; and it is\nobserved, by that learned writer but now referred to, that these\nchurches, at first, were comparatively small, and not exceeding the\nlimits of the city, or village, in which they were situate, each of\nwhich was under the care, or oversight, of its respective pastor, or\nbishop.\n\nThis was the state of the church, more especially, in the three first\ncenturies: but, if we descend a little lower to the fourth century, we\nshall find that the government thereof was very much altered, when it\narrived to a peaceable and flourishing state; then, indeed, the bishops\nhad the oversight of of larger dioceses, than they had before, which\nproceeded from the aspiring temper of particular persons[292], who were\nnot content till they had added some neighbouring parishes to their own,\nand so their churches became very large, till they extended themselves\nover whole provinces. But even this was complained of by some, as an\nabuse; which occasioned Chrysostom so frequently to insist on the\ninconvenience of bishops having churches too large for them to take the\noversight of, and not so much regarding the qualifications as the number\nof those over whom they presided; and he signifies his earnest desire,\nthat those under his care might rather excel in piety, than in number,\nas it would be an expedient for his better discharging the work\ncommitted to him[293].\n\nThus concerning the character and distinction of the pastors of\nchurches, together with the form of the church in the first ages of\nChristianity; and what is observed, by many, concerning the agreement\nand difference which there was between bishops and presbyters: but this\nhas been so largely insisted on, by many who have written on both sides\nthe question, and the controversy turning very much on critical remarks\nmade on some occasional passages, taken out of the writings of the\nFathers, without recourse to scripture; it is therefore less necessary,\nor agreeable to our present design, to enlarge on that head: however, we\nmay observe, that some of those who have written in defence of Diocesan\nEpiscopacy, have been forced to acknowledge, that Jerom, Augustin,\nAmbrose, Chrysostom, in the Fourth Century; and, in some following ages,\nSedulius, Primatius, Theodoret, and Theophylact, have all held the\nidentity of both name and order of bishops and presbyters in the\nprimitive church[294]. Jerom, in particular, is more express on this\nsubject than any of them, and proves it from some arguments taken from\nscripture, which speak of the distinction that there was between them,\nas being the result of those divisions, by which the peace and order of\nthe church was broken, and that it was no other than an human\nconstitution.[295] This opinion of Jerom is largely defended by a\nlearned writer, who shews that it is agreeable to the sentiments of\nother Fathers, who lived before and after him. Thus concerning a pastor,\nas styled a _bishop_ or _presbyter_; we shall now consider him as\ninvested in his office, whereby he becomes related to a particular\nchurch of Christ. That no one is pastor of the catholic church, has been\nobserved, under a foregoing head[301], wherein we shewed, that the\nchurch, when styled catholic, is not to be reckoned the seat of\ngovernment; and therefore we must consider a pastor as presiding over a\nparticular church; and, in order hereunto, it is necessary that he\nshould be called, or chosen, to take the oversight of it, on their part,\nand comply with the invitation on his own, and, after that be solemnly\ninvested in, or set apart, to this office.\n\n(1.) We are to consider what more especially respects the church, who\nhave a right to choose, or call those, who are qualified for the work,\nto engage in this service, and to perform the two branches of the\npastoral office, namely, instructing and governing. This is not only\nagreeable to the laws of society, but is plainly contained in scripture,\nand appears to have been the sentiment and practice of the church, in\nthe three first centuries thereof. The church\u2019s power of choosing their\nown officers, is sufficiently evident from scripture. If there were any\nexception hereunto, it must be in those instances in which there was an\nextraordinary hand of providence in the appointment of officers over\nthem; but, even then, God sometimes referred the matter to their own\nchoice: thus, when Moses made several persons rulers over Israel, to\nbear a part of the burden, which before was wholly laid on him, he\nrefers this to their own election, when he says, _Take ye wise men, and\nunderstanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers\nover you_, Deut. i. 13. And in the gospel-church, which, at first,\nconsisted of _about an hundred and twenty members_, Acts i. 15. when an\napostle was to be chosen to succeed Judas, they _appointed two_ out of\ntheir number, and prayed, that God would _signify which of them he had\nchosen_; and, when they had _given forth their lots, the lot fell upon\nMatthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles_, ver. 23. so we\nrender the words: but if they had been rendered, he was numbered among\nthe eleven apostles, by common suffrage or vote, it would have been more\nexpressive of the sense thereof[302]. Soon after this, we read of the\nchoice of other officers, to wit, deacons in the church, chap. vi. 3.\nand the apostles say to them, _Look ye out among you seven men, whom ye\nmay appoint over this business_. And afterwards, in their appointing\nelders, or pastors, over particular churches, we read of their choosing\nthem by vote or suffrage: thus it is said, in Acts xiv. 23. _When they\nhad ordained them elders in every church_; so we translate the\nwords[303]; but they might be better rendered, _When they had chosen\nelders in every church by lifting up of the hand_. This was, and is, at\nthis day, a common mode of electing persons, either to civil or\nreligious offices.[304] And it might be easily proved from the Fathers,\nthat this was the universal practice of the church in the three first\ncenturies, and not wholly laid aside in following ages, till civil\npolicy, and secular interest usurped and invaded the rights thereof: but\nthis argument having been judiciously managed by Dr. Owen[305], I pass\nit over, and proceed to consider,\n\n(2.) That a pastor being thus chosen, by the church, and having\nconfirmed his election by his own consent; then follows his being\nseparated, or publicly set apart to this office, with fasting and\nprayer, which is generally called _ordination_. This does not, indeed,\nconstitute a person a pastor of a church, so that his election,\nconfirmed by his consent, would not have been valid without it; yet it\nis not only agreeable to the scripture-rule, but highly expedient, that,\nas his ministerial acts are to be public, his first entering into his\noffice should be so likewise, and, in order thereunto, that other\npastors, or elders, should join in this solemnity; for, though they do\nnot confer this office upon him, yet thereby they testify their\napprobation of the person, chosen to it; and a foundation is laid for\nthat harmony of pastors and churches, that tends to the glory of God,\nand the promoting of the common interest. This also fences against\nseveral inconveniences which might ensue; since it is possible that a\nchurch may chuse a person to be their pastor, whose call to, and\nqualification for this office may be questioned; and it is natural to\nsuppose, that they would expect that their proceedings herein should be\njustified and defended by other pastors and churches, and the communion\nof churches maintained: but how can this be done if no expedient be used\nto render this matter public and visible, which this way of ordaining or\nsetting apart to the pastoral office does? And they who join herein\ntestify their approbation thereof, as what is agreeable to the rule of\nthe gospel.\n\nThis public inauguration, or investiture in the pastoral office, is, for\nthe most part, performed with imposition of hands, which, because it is\nso frequently mentioned in scripture, and appears to have been practised\nby the church in all succeeding ages, it will be reckoned, by many, to\nbe no other than a fruitless attempt, if not an offending against the\ngeneration of God\u2019s people, to call in question the warrantableness\nthereof. It is certain, this ceremony was used in the early ages of the\nchurch, particularly in public and solemn benedictions: thus Jacob laid\nhis hands on Ephraim and Manasseh, when he blessed them; and also in\nconferring political offices, Numb. xxvii. 18. Deut. xxiv. 9. It was\nalso used in healing diseases in a miraculous way, 2 Kings v. 11. Mark\nvii. 32. and it was sometimes used when persons were eminently converted\nto the Christian faith and baptized, Acts ix. 17. These things are very\nevident from scripture: nevertheless, it may be observed, that, in\nseveral of these instances, it is, and has, for some ages past, been\nlaid aside, by reason of the discontinuance of those extraordinary\ngifts, which were signified thereby. There was, doubtless, something\nextraordinary in the patriarchal benediction; as Jacob did not only pray\nfor a blessing on the sons of Joseph, but as a prophet he foretold that\nthe divine blessing, which he spake of, should descend on their\nposterity; and therefore we don\u2019t read of this ceremony\u2019s being used in\nthe more common instances, when persons, who were not endowed with the\nspirit of prophecy, put up prayers or supplications to God for others.\nAnd though it was sometimes used, as in the instances before-mentioned,\nin the designation of persons to political offices; yet it was not in\nthose times in which the church of the Jews was under the divine\ntheocracy, and extraordinary gifts were expected to qualify them for the\noffice they were called to perform.\n\nAnd whereas we frequently read, in scripture of imposition of hands, in\nthe ordination, or setting apart of ministers to the pastoral office,\nwhile extraordinary gifts were conferred, and of these gifts being also\nbestowed on persons who were converted to the Christian faith, and\nbaptized; in these, and other instances of the like nature, this\nceremony was used, as a significant sign and ordinance for their faith:\nbut it is certain, that the conferring extraordinary gifts to qualify\nfor the pastoral office, is not now to be expected; therefore it must\neither be proved, that, besides this, something else was signified,\nwhich may be now expected, or else the use thereof, as a significant\nsign, or an ordinance for our faith, cannot be well defended. And if it\nbe said, that the conferring this office is signified thereby, it must\nbe proved, that they who use the sign, have a right to confer the\noffice, or to constitute a person a pastor of a particular church. If\nthese things cannot easily be proved, then we must suppose that the\nexternal action is used, without having in it the nature of a sign, and\nthen it is to be included among those things that are indifferent; and a\nperson\u2019s right to exercise the pastoral office, does not depend on the\nuse; nor, on the other hand, is it to be called in question, by reason\nof the neglect thereof. But, to conclude this head, if the only thing\nintended hereby be what Augustin understood to be the meaning of\nimposition of hands, on those who were baptized in his day, namely, that\nit was nothing else but a praying over persons[306], I have nothing to\nobject against it: but if more be intended hereby, and especially if it\nbe reckoned so necessary to the pastoral office, that it cannot be\nacceptably performed without it; this may give just reason for many to\nexcept against it.\n\n(3.) We shall now consider the pastor, as discharging his office. This\nmore immediately respects the church to which he stands related,\nespecially in what concerns that branch thereof, which consists in\npresiding or ruling over them. If there be more elders joined with him,\nwith whom he is to act in concert, this is generally called a\n_consistory_, which I cannot think essential to the exercise of that\ngovernment, which Christ has appointed; though sometimes it may be\nexpedient, as was before observed: but whether there be one, or more,\nthat bear rule in the church, their power is subjected to certain\nlimitations, agreeable to the laws of society, and those in particular\nwhich Christ has given to his church. As the nature of the office we are\nspeaking of, does not argue that the church is without any government,\nor under such a democracy as infers confusion, or supposes that every\none has a right to give laws to the whole body; so it has not those\ningredients of absolute and unlimited monarchy or aristocracy, as are\ninconsistent with liberty; and therefore we suppose, that a pastor, and\nother elders, if such be joined with him, are not to rule according to\ntheir own will, or to act separately from the church in the affairs of\ngovernment, but in their name, and with their consent; and therefore\nthey are generally styled, the instruments by which the church exerts\nthat power which Christ has given it; and accordingly a church, when\nofficers are set over it, is said to be organized. This is called, in\nscripture, the power of the keys, which, agreeably to the laws of\nsociety, is originally in them, and is to be exercised in their name,\nand with their consent, by their officers; and therefore a pastor, or\nother elders with him, have no power to act without the consent of the\nchurch, in receiving members into, or excluding them from its communion.\nThis I cannot but think to be agreeable to the law of nature, on which\nthe laws of society are founded, as well as the gospel-rule.\n\nI am sensible that many of the reformed churches, who allow that this\npower is originally in them, conclude notwithstanding, and their\npractice is consonant hereunto, that it may be consigned over to the\npastor and elders, and that this is actually done by them when they\nchuse them into that office. The principal argument, by which this is\ngenerally defended, is, that because they are fit to teach, they are fit\nto govern, without being directed in any thing that relates thereunto.\nBut the question is not concerning the fitness of persons for it, which\nis not to be denied; but whether the church ought to divest itself of\nthat power which Christ has given it, especially when it may be exerted\nwithout anarchy or confusion; which it certainly may, if this power be\nnot abused, or the due exercise thereof neglected. And, in order\nhereunto, a church-officer is to prepare matters for the church, that\nnothing trifling, vain, or contentious may be brought before them; and\nto communicate them to it, to desire to know their sentiments about\nthem, and to declare, improve, and act pursuant thereunto.\n\nThere are, indeed, some branches of the pastoral office, which are to be\nperformed without the church\u2019s immediate direction; such as preaching\nthe word, administring the sacraments, visiting the sick, comforting the\nafflicted, endeavouring to satisfy them that are under doubts, or\nscruples of conscience, and excite and encourage them to perform those\nduties, which their professed subjection to Christ, and their relation\nto his church, oblige them to.\n\n(4.) We shall now consider pastors, or elders of churches, as employed\noccasionally in using their best endeavours to assist others in some\ndifficulties, in which their direction is needed or desired. This is\nwhat we call a _synod_, which word is very much disrelished by some in\nour age; and it were to be wished, that there had been no occasion for\nthis prejudice, from the account we have of the abuses practised by\nsynods and councils in former ages. This gave great uneasiness to\nGregory Nazianzen, who complains of confusions, and want of temper which\nwere too notorious in some synods in the age in which he lived[307]. And\nafterwards we find, that almost all the corruptions that were brought\ninto the church, were countenanced by some synod or other; and many of\nthem assumed to themselves a power of making laws, which were to be\nreceived with equal obligation, as though they had been delivered by the\nimmediate inspiration of the Holy Ghost; and a door was opened by them\nto persecution, so that they have in many instances, taken away not only\nthe religious, but civil rights of mankind. It will therefore be thought\nstrange that I should so much as mention the word; but though I equally\ndetest every thing of this nature, that has been practised by them; yet\nit is not impossible to treat on this subject in an unexceptionable\nmanner: It is certainly a warrantable practice, founded in the law of\nnature, for persons who cannot compromise a matter in debate, to desire\nthe advice of others. The same is, doubtless, true in religious matters;\ntherefore we suppose that there may be some matters debated in a church,\nwhich cannot be issued among themselves. And in this case, provided it\nbe an affair of importance, it is expedient for them to apply themselves\nto other churches, to give their advice in this matter by their pastors\nand elders: If it be some corruption in doctrine that has insinuated\nitself into it, they may desire to know the sense of others about it,\nstill reserving to themselves a judgment of discretion, without\nreckoning their decrees infallible; or if it be in matters of conduct,\nwhich, through the perverseness of some, and ignorance of others, may be\nof pernicious tendency, if suitable advice be not given; then it ought\nto be desired and complied with, so far as it appears to be agreeable to\nthe mind of Christ. This is therefore not only allowable, but very\nexpedient.\n\nI have nothing to say as to the number of persons, to whom this matter\nmay be referred: A multitude of counsellors may sometimes be mistaken,\nwhen a smaller number have given better advice; neither have I any thing\nto allege in defence of \u0153cumenical councils, much less such as have been\nconvened by the usurped power of the bishop of Rome. But we are speaking\nof a particular church under some difficulties, desiring the advice of\nas many as they think meet to refer the matter to: or if a Christian\nmagistrate demands the advice of the pastors or elders of churches, in\nhis dominions, in those religious affairs that are subservient to his\ngovernment, they ought to obey him. These things are altogether\nunexceptionable: But when ministers give vent to their own passions, and\npretend to give a sanction to doctrines that are unscriptural; or if\nthey annex anathemas to their decrees, or enforce them by\nexcommunication, or put the civil magistrate on methods of persecution;\nthis is going beyond the rule, and offering prejudice rather than doing\nservice to the interest of Christ: But when they only signify what is\ntheir judgment about some important articles of faith, or\nchurch-discipline, or some intricate cases of conscience, in which it is\ndesired; and endeavour to give conviction rather by arguments, than\nbarely their authority, this is not only their duty, but an advantage to\nthe church, as the synod that met at Jerusalem was to the church at\nAntioch, Acts xv. 31-33.\n\nThus we have considered the office of a Pastor. It might be expected\nthat we should consider that of a Teacher, which many think to be a\ndistinct officer in the church, as the apostle says, _He gave some\npastors and teachers_, Eph. iv. 11. There are many, who treat on this\nmatter, that suppose a teacher to be a distinct officer from a pastor;\nbut yet when they call him a teaching elder, and allow him to have a\npart of the government of the church, as well as to be employed in the\nwork of preaching, their method of explaining the nature of this office\nsupposes it to differ little or nothing from that of a pastor, except in\nname. If they say that the difference consists in that the pastor is\nsuperior in honour and degree, to a teacher, and make the latter no more\nthan a provisionary officer in the church, appointed to perform what\nproperly belongs to the pastor, when he is absent, or indisposed, or,\nfor any other reason, desires him to officiate for him; I cannot see\nreason to conclude that this is the meaning of the word teacher, as\nmentioned by the apostle; so that whilst they plead for its being a\ndistinct office in the church, and, at the same time, explain it in such\na way, there seems to be little else but a distinction without a\ndifference.\n\nAs for the opinion of those who think that it was, indeed, a distinct\noffice, but that a teacher was called, by the church, to some other\nbranches of teaching, which the pastor could not well attend to, and\nthat these were such as were styled, by the primitive church,\nCatechists; this deserves our consideration. We read, in the early ages\nof the church, of persons who had this office and character: Their work\nwas such as needed those gifts, which our blessed Saviour was pleased to\nbestow on men, for the propagating his interest in the world, as much as\nany other; for, whether they preached publicly or no, as the pastor was\ncalled to do, their business was not only to instruct the catechumens,\nwho were disposed to embrace the Christian doctrine, but all who were\nwilling to be taught by them; for which end there were public schools\nerected, which were under the direction, care, and countenance of the\nchurch, in which the method of instruction was, by explaining the\nscriptures, and, in public and set disputations, defending the Christian\nreligion against those who opposed it, by which means many were\nconverted to the Christian faith from among the heathen; and others, who\nwere initiated therein, were, by this means, as well as by public\npreaching, established and confirmed therein, and thereby qualified for\nchurch-communion, and then baptized and joined to the church. Thus we\nread, in the writings of the Fathers, and church-historians, of several\nwho performed this office with very great reputation and\nusefulness[308]; and it is thought, by some, to have been not only\nagreeable to the practice of the church in the apostle\u2019s days, but\nderived from it; and though it be not so plainly mentioned in scripture,\nas some other officers are, yet that the apostle refers to it, when he\nsays, _Let him that is taught in the word, communicate unto him that\nteacheth_, Gal. vi. 6. that is, Let him that is catechized communicate\nto the catechist[309]. But this is, at best, but a probable sense of the\nword, and therefore not sufficient of itself to give ground to conclude,\nthat the apostle intends this when he speaks of teachers, as distinct\nofficers from pastors. However, though, doubtless, the practice of the\nchurch, as above-mentioned, in appointing such officers was commendable;\nyet it does not fully appear, that this is what the apostle intends,\nthough I will not deny it to be a probable conjecture; and I should\nacquiesce in it, rather than in any other sense of the text that I have\nhitherto met with, did I not think that the words pastors and teachers\nmight not be as well, if not better, understood, as signifying one and\nthe same office; and therefore I had rather understand them as Jerom and\nAugustin do[310], _q. d._ _He gave some pastors_, to wit, _teachers_, or\npastors that are teachers, or engaged in preaching the gospel, which is\nthe principal branch of their office. And that which gives me farther\nground to understand the words in this sense, is, because the apostle,\nwhen he enumerates the officers of a church elsewhere, speaks of\nteachers without any mention of pastors, as it is said, _God has set\nsome in the church; first, apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly,\nteachers_, 1 Cor. xii. 28. where no mention is made of pastors, as being\nincluded in the word teachers; and this is agreeable to what we observed\nelsewhere,[311] which is all we shall add on this head.\n\nThe next officer in a church is a deacon, whose work and business is\ndescribed as _serving tables_, Acts vi. 2. that is, the Lord\u2019s table, by\nproviding what is necessary for the Lord\u2019s supper, and assisting in the\ndistribution of the elements. He is also to supply the poor with\nnecessaries, and to take care that the minister may be maintained, and\nother expenses defrayed; and, in order hereunto, he is to receive the\ncontributions raised by the church for those ends; so that the office is\nproperly secular, though necessary and useful, as subservient to others\nthat are of a spiritual nature. The apostle gives an account of the\nqualifications of those who are to engage in this office, in 1 Tim. iii.\n8-13. in which he speaks of them as persons of an unblemished character,\nof great gravity and sobriety, and other endowments, which may render\nthem faithful in the discharge of their trust, and exemplary and useful\nin their station.\n\nIn the first age of the church, after the apostles\u2019 days, when it was\nunder persecution, it was the deacon\u2019s work to visit and give necessary\nrelief to the martyrs and confessors: but we do not find that they\nperformed any other branches of service besides this, and those above\nmentioned; though Tertullian speaks of them, in his time, as being\npermitted to baptize in the absence of bishops and presbyters,[312] in\nwhich they went beyond the scripture-rule, and, after this, they\npreached; and this practice has been defended by all who plead for\ndiocesan episcopacy unto this day. But the arguments they bring for it,\nfrom scripture, are not sufficiently conclusive, when they say, that\nStephen and Philip, who were the first deacons, preached; for this they\ndid as evangelists, not as deacons. These indeed, as it is said of the\nbishop, in 1 Tim. iii. 2. ought to be _apt to teach_: thus they are\ndescribed, ver. 9. as _holding the mystery of faith in a pure\nconscience_; yet this extends no farther than that they should be fit to\nedify those, by their instructions, whom they relieved, by giving them a\npart of the church\u2019s contributions, that, by their conversation, they\nmay do good to their souls, as well as, by what they give them, to their\nbodies. And when it is farther said, that _they who have used the office\nof a deacon well, purchase to themselves a good degree, and great\nboldness in the faith_, ver. 13. this does not sufficiently prove, as\nmany ancient and modern writers suppose, that this qualifies them for\nthe office of presbyters, since there is no affinity between these two\noffices; and one cannot, properly speaking, be a qualification for the\nother: but the good degree is, probably, to be understood of their\nhaving great honour in the church, as persons eminently useful to it;\nand great boldness in the faith, is not boldness in preaching the\ngospel, but resolution and stedfastness in adhering to the faith, and,\nin their proper station, defending, and being ready, when called to it,\nto suffer for it. Thus we have considered the government of the church,\nand the officers which Christ has appointed in it.[313]\n\n6. The last thing to be considered, is the privileges of the visible\nchurch, particularly as the members thereof are said to be under God\u2019s\nspecial care and government, and, as the consequence hereof, have safe\nprotection and preservation, whatever opposition they may meet with from\ntheir enemies; and they also enjoy communion of saints, and the ordinary\nmeans of salvation.\n\n(1.) We shall consider the church, as under the care of Christ. This is\nthe result of his propriety in them, and his having undertaken to do all\nthings for them, as Mediator, that are necessary to their salvation.\nThis care, extended towards them, is called special, and so differs\nfrom, and contains in it many privileges, distinct from, and superior to\nthat which is expressed in the methods of his common providence in the\nworld. There are several metaphorical expressions used, in scripture, to\ndenote Christ\u2019s care of, and the particular relation he stands in to his\nchurch: thus he is described as their Shepherd, performing those things\nfor them that such a relation imports, Psal. xxiii. 1, 2. and lxxx. 1.\nIsa. xl. 11. Jer. xxxi. 10. namely, his giving them, in a spiritual\nsense, rest and safety, gathering, leading, and defending them; and as\nsuch he does more for his people, than the shepherd, who, being faithful\nto his trust, hazards his life; for Christ is expressly said to _give\nhis life for his sheep_, John x. 11.\n\nMoreover, his care of his church is set forth, by his standing in the\nrelation of a _Father_ to them; which argues his tender and\ncompassionate concern for their welfare, as well as safety, Deut. xxxii.\n7. Psal. ciii. 13. Isa. lxiii. 16. Jer. xxxi. 9. Now the care of Christ,\nextended to his Church, consists,\n\n_1st_, In his separating them from, and, as it were, gathering them out\nof the world, or that part of it that _lieth in wickedness_, as the\napostle says, _The whole world lieth in wickedness_, 1 John v. 19. or,\nas the word may be rendered, in the wicked one; upon which account it is\ncalled, Satan\u2019s kingdom. He gives them restraining grace, brings them\nunder conviction of sin, and humbles them for it; and, by the preaching\nof the gospel, not only informs them of the way of salvation, but brings\nthem into it.\n\n_2dly_, By raising up, and spiriting some amongst them for extraordinary\nservice and usefulness in their station, adorning them with those\ngraces, whereby their conversation is exemplary, and they made to shine\nas lights in the world; and not only in some particular instances, but\nby a constant succession, filling up the places of those who are removed\nto a better world, with others, who are added to the church daily, of\nsuch as shall be saved.\n\n_3dly_, His care is farther extended, by fatherly correction, to prevent\ntheir ruin and apostacy, which, as the apostle says, is an instance of\nhis _love_ to them Heb. xii. 6, 7. and also of his keeping them from,\nand _in the hour of temptation_, Rev. iii, 10. and _bruising Satan under\ntheir feet_, Rom. xvi. 20. and in supporting them under, and fortifying\nthem against the many difficulties, reproaches, and persecutions, they\nare exposed to in this world, as Moses says, in the blessing of Asher,\n_As thy days, so shall thy strength be; the eternal God is thy refuge,\nand underneath are the everlasting arms_, Deut. xxxiii. 25, 27.\n\n(2.) The visible church is under Christ\u2019s special government. It is a\npart of his glory, as Mediator, that he is the supreme Head and Lord\nthereof; and this cannot but redound to the advantage of his subjects,\nas these we are speaking of are said to be, who profess subjection to\nhim, which is not only their duty, but their peculiar glory, as they are\nthereby distinguished from the world, and entitled to his special\nregard. He is their King; and accordingly,\n\n_1st_, He gives them laws, by which they are visibly governed, so that\nthey are not destitute of a rule of government, any more than of a rule\nof faith, whereby their peace, order, edification, and salvation, are\npromoted, and all the advantages, which they receive from the wisdom and\nconduct of pastors, or other officers, whom he has appointed to go in\nand out before them, _to feed them with knowledge and understanding_,\nJer. iii. 15. _to watch for their souls_, Heb. xiii. 17. are all\nChrist\u2019s gifts, and therefore privileges which the church enjoys, as\nunder his government.\n\n_2dly_, He protects and preserves them, notwithstanding the opposition\nof all their enemies; so that whatever attempts have been hitherto made\nto extirpate or ruin them, have been ineffectual. The church has\nweathered many a tempest, and had safety, as well as various marks of\nthe divine honour and favour, under all the persecutions, which it has\nbeen exposed to; so that, according to our Saviour\u2019s prediction, _The\ngates of hell have not prevailed against it_, Matt. xvi. 18. and all\nthese afflictive dispensations of providence are over-ruled for the\npromoting his own glory, and their spiritual advantage.\n\n(3.) Another privilege, which the church enjoys, is communion of saints.\nCommunion is the consequence of union, and therefore since they are\nunited together as visible saints, they enjoy that communion, which is\nthe result thereof. The apostle speaks of a two-fold fellowship which\nthe church enjoys, their attaining whereof he reckoned the great end and\ndesign of his ministry, when he says, _That which we have seen and heard\ndeclare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us; and truly\nour fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ_, 1\nJohn i. 3. The former of these is included in church communion; the\nlatter is an honour which God is pleased sometimes to confer on those\nwho are brought into this relation: It is what all are to hope for,\nthough none but they, who are Christ\u2019s subjects by faith, are made\npartakers of it. However, the communion of saints is, in itself, a great\nprivilege, inasmuch as that a common profession, which they make of\nsubjection to Christ, and the hope of the gospel, which they are\nfavoured with, is a strong motive and inducement to holiness.\n\nAnd it is not the smallest part of the advantage, which arises from\nhence, that they are interested in the prayers of all the faithful that\nare daily put up to God for those blessings on all his churches which\nmay tend to their edification and salvation.\n\nAnd as to what concerns the members of particular churches, who have\ncommunion with one another; there is a great advantage arising from\nmutual conversation about divine things, and the endeavour, which they\nare obliged to use _to build up themselves in their holy faith_, Jude\nver. 20. and _to consider one another to provoke unto love, and to good\nworks, not forsaking the assembling of themselves together, but\nexhorting one another_, Heb. x. 24, 25. and also the obligations they\nare under to _bear one another\u2019s burdens, and so fulfil the law of\nChrist_, Gal. vi. 2. and to express that sympathy and compassion to each\nother, under the various afflictions and trials which they are exposed\nto.\n\nAnd to this we may add another privilege which they are made partakers\nof, in that they have communion with one another in the ordinance of the\nLord\u2019s supper, in which they hope for and enjoy communion with him,\nwhose death is shewed forth therein, and the benefits thereof applied to\nthem that believe.\n\n(4.) The church is farther said to enjoy the ordinary means of\nsalvation, and the offers of grace to all the members thereof in the\nministry of the gospel, by which we are to understand the word preached,\nand prayer. These are called the ordinary means of salvation, as\ndistinguished from the powerful influences of the Spirit, which are the\ninternal and efficacious means of grace, producing such effects, as\ninfer the right which such have to eternal life. These ordinary means of\ngrace the church is said to partake of. It is for their sake that the\ngospel is continued to be preached, and a public testimony to the truth\nthereof is given by them to the world; and, in the preaching thereof,\nChrist is offered to sinners, and, pursuant thereunto, grace given,\nwhereby the church is increased, and built up by those who are taken out\nof the world, as God makes these ordinances effectual to answer that\nend. The duty of waiting on him therein is ours, the success thereof is\nintirely owing to the divine blessing attending it. These are the\nprivileges that the visible church enjoys.\n\nWe might have proceeded to consider those which the members of the\ninvisible church are made partakers of, namely, union and communion with\nChrist in grace and glory; but these are particularly insisted on in\nsome following answers.\n\nFootnote 257:\n\n \u03b5\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1.\n\nFootnote 258:\n\n _The words_ \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf, _when used elsewhere, cannot be understood of\n the place where persons were met, but of the unanimity of those who\n were engaged in the same action; and therefore it is rendered_ Simul,\n _in Acts_ iii. 1. _and chap._ iv. 26.\n\nFootnote 259:\n\n _See his works, Vol. I. Book II. Page 405_, & seq.\n\nFootnote 260:\n\n \u039a\u03b1\u03c4 \u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 261:\n\n _See page 432_, & seq.\n\nFootnote 262:\n\n _It may be observed, that though the learned author before-mentioned\n gives sufficient evidence, from the Fathers, that there were several\n places appropriated, and some erected, for divine worship, during the\n three first Centuries; and he thinks, that whether they were\n consecrated or no, there was a great degree of reverence paid to them,\n even at such times, when divine service was not performed in them: Yet\n he does not produce any proof for this out of the writings of the\n Fathers, in those Centuries; and it is impossible that he should, for\n from Eusebius\u2019s account of this matter, it appears that the\n consecration of churches was first practised in the Fourth Century_,\n [_Vid. ejusd. Hist. Eccl. Lib. X. cap. 3._] _As for the quotations\n that Mr. Mede brings from Chrysostom and Ambrose, to prove that\n reverence was paid to the churches in their times it must be observed,\n that they lived in the Fourth Century, in which churches being not\n only appropriated, but consecrated for public worship, it is no wonder\n to find the Fathers of that age expressing a reverence for them.\n Nevertheless, it is very evident, from the words of these Fathers here\n cited, that they intend thereby nothing else but a reverent behaviour,\n which ought to be expressed by those who come into the church to\n perform any act of divine worship; and this we are far from denying,\n whether the external rites of consecration be used or no. As for his\n quotation taken from Tertulian, who lived in the end of the Second\n Century it don\u2019t prove that he thought that reverence ought to be\n expressed to the places of worship, but that the highest reverence\n ought to be used in the acts of worship, and particularly in prayer,\n which is an undoubted truth, whether we worship God in the church, or\n any where else._\n\nFootnote 263:\n\n \u05e2\u05e8\u05d4.\n\nFootnote 264:\n\n The word Church is of Greek derivation. \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd is used by ancient\n authors for the place of public worship. The old word Kyroike,\n contracted into Kirk, and softened into church, is a compound of\n \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2. It is of very extensive signification. Church is used\n generally in our version of the New Testament, for the Greek\n \u0395\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1.\u2014\u2014\n\n The words \u0395\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1 in the New, and \u05e7\u05d4\u05dc in the Old Testament, are\n synonymous. They both proceed from the same root \u05e7\u05dc, the voice. The\n meaning of each is assembly\u2014any number of persons met, by previous\n appointment. The verb, in each language, from which the noun\n immediately proceeds, is, to call out, to call together, and the noun\n is that which is so called.\n\n It is, of course, no abuse of language to apply the word to any\n assembly, great or small, which meets for social or judiciary\n purposes. The character of the assembly is known from the connexion in\n which the word is used, and not from the word itself. In this latitude\n of application, the inspired writers of both Testaments made use of\n the words \u05e7\u05d4\u05dc and \u0395\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1.\n\n In the Old Testament, the former of these words is applied to a number\n of idolatrous women\u2014bands of soldiers\u2014the commonwealth of\n Israel\u2014distinct worshipping congregations\u2014a representative assembly\u2014a\n council, and, I may add, to other assemblies of every description.\n\n 1. The word \u05e7\u05d4\u05dc is used in Jer. xliv. 15. It is applied to a great\n number of idolatrous women, who, together with their husbands,\n persisted in their opposition to the command of God by the prophet\n Jeremiah. It is worthy of being remarked, that the Septuagint, in this\n instance, renders the word by \u03a3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03b7. Our translation renders it\n multitude.\n\n 2. It signifies bands of soldiers. Ezek. xxvi. 7. These marched\n against Tyrus, under the direction of the tyrant Nebuchadnezzar king\n of Babylon. The Septuagint renders it, as above, _synagogues_, and the\n English translators, _companies_.\n\n 3. The word (which, for the sake of the English reader, I shall write\n KEL,) is used for the whole commonwealth of Israel. That people,\n called by God, were bound together by a sacred ritual, and all were\n commanded to keep the passover. Exod. xii. 6. Our translation renders\n it the whole assembly, and in the Septuagint it is \u03a0\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2.\n\n 4. It signifies distinct worshipping societies. Ps. xxvi. 12. In this\n verse, the Psalmist professes his resolution to honour the\n institutions of social worship. He had rather accompany the saints to\n the congregation, than sit in the society of the wicked, ver. 5. In\n both cases the same Hebrew word is used; the Septuagint use \u0395\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1,\n and the English translators, congregation. KEL, and Ecclesia, are,\n with equal propriety, applied to the hateful clubs of the wicked, and\n to the worshipping assemblies of the saints.\n\n 5. The word is also applied to a representative assembly.\u2014\u2014\n\n \u2014After the regular organization of the Israelitish commonwealth,\n although Moses transacted all public business with the chiefs, he is\n uniformly represented as speaking unto all Israel. This form of speech\n was not to be misunderstood by the Jews. They had not learned to deny\n that principle upon which the represented identify with the\n representative. Deut. xxix. 14, 15, 25. When Moses was about to give\n his last advice to the Hebrews, he summoned the KEL before him. Deut.\n xxxi. 30. In this instance, the word unquestionably signifies a\n representative body. My reasons for considering it so, are,\n\n 1. The obvious meaning of the passage. Ver. 29. \u201cGather unto me all\n the _elders_ of your tribes\u2014that I may speak these words in _their_\n ears.\u201d\u2014ver. 30. \u201cAnd Moses spake in the ears of all the \u05e7\u05d4\u05dc\u2014the words\n of this song.\u201d The KEL of Israel are the elders and officers met\n together.\n\n 2. It is impossible it can be otherwise. Moses could not speak in the\n ears of all Israel, except by representation. No human voice can\n extend over two millions of men.\n\n 3. Upon the principle of representation Moses uniformly acted. He\n instructed the elders, and the elders commanded the people. Deut.\n xxvii. 1. \u201c_And Moses, with the elders of Israel, commanded the\n people_.\u201d Without multiplying texts, I refer the reader to Exod. xii.\n 3. \u201cSpeak unto all the _congregation_ of Israel\u201d\u2014verse 21. \u201cThen Moses\n called for all the _elders_ of Israel.\u201d Even in the most solemn acts\n of religion, the elders represented the whole congregation. Their\n hands were placed upon the head of the bullock which was offered to\n make atonement for the whole congregation. Lev. iv. 15. And that the\n reader may not be without an instance of the use of the word KEL, in\n the most abstract form which can exist upon the representative\n principle itself, I refer him to Gen. xxviii. 3. Here it is applied to\n a single individual. Higher than this, representation cannot be\n carried. Ver. 1. \u201cIsaac called Jacob, and blessed him\u201d\u2014ver. 3. \u201cThat\n thou mayest be a KEL.\u201d Jacob was a KEL, as the representative@ of a\n very numerous posterity.\n\n 6. The word is used to signify a council\u2014an assembly for deliberation\n and judgment. Gen. xlix. 6. The patriarch speaks of Simeon and Levi,\n these two are a KEL. It is, indeed, a representative one. Verse 7. \u201cI\n will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel.\u201d This could\n have been said of the two sons of Jacob, only as including their\n posterity.\n\n This KEL was however a council. They consulted and determined to\n destroy the Schechemites. The assembly was a conspiracy. The\n Septuagint renders the word by \u03a3\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2.\n\n The KEL in which Job cried for redress, could not have been the church\n of Israel, but a court of Judicature. Job xxx. 28.\n\n Solomon, acquainted with the laws of Israel, must have referred to the\n power of Judicatures, in detecting crimes, when he spoke of the KEL,\n in Prov. xxvi. 26. and v. 14.\n\n The KEL, to which Ezekiel refers, xvi. 40. and xxiii. 45-47. cannot be\n mistaken. The prophet himself expressly says this KEL would sit in\n judgment, try, and decide, and execute the sentence, upon those who\n came before them, In these verses, the Septuagint renders the word by\n \u039f\u03c7\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2, and our translation of it is company.\n\n By the law of God, regular courts of jurisprudence were established\n among the Israelites. In no instance was the whole body of the people\n to be judges. Deut. xvi. 18. The rulers in each city, the officers of\n justice, are uniformly called elders, and unto these elders met in\n council, is every case referred. He must be, indeed, little acquainted\n with the law given by Moses, who is ignorant of this fact. See Deut.\n xxi. xxii. and xxv. chapters.\n\n These elders met in council. To them the name _Presbytery_ was applied\n in latter times. Moses and the prophets use the names KEL and OD-EH.\n These words are used indiscriminately in the Old Testament. It is to\n be observed, that they are translated in the Septuagint, generally by\n ecclesia and synagoga. This phraseology is adopted in the New\n Testament. The New Testament writers use the Septuagint translation of\n the scriptures in their quotations from the Old Testament.\n\n Nehemiah summoned before the council the nobles and rulers who\n transgressed the law. Neh. v. 7. They exacted usury for their money,\n and are to be tried by the competent authorities. The word \u05e7\u05d4\u05dc, in\n this verse, we translate assembly, and the Septuagint reads \u0395\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1.\n Compare Numb. xxxv. 24, with Deut. xix. 12, and it will appear, that\n the congregation which judicially tried the man-slayer, is the\n _Ecclesia_ of elders. See also Josh. xx. 4. \u201cHe shall declare his\n cause in the ears of the _elders_\u201d\u2014ver. 6. \u201cAnd stand before the\n _congregation_ for judgment.\u201d\n\n The word \u0395\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1, in the New Testament, is not, any more than its\n correspondents in the Old, confined in its application to a popular\n assembly. It signifies a tumultuous mob, Acts xix. 32. and the city\n council, Acts xix. 39. This sense of the word is justified by the best\n Greek authors. Consult Passor, who quotes Demosthenes and Suidas, in\n defence of this application. Hence, the verb \u0395\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03bf is, in the\n middle and passive voices, to appeal from an inferior to a superior\n Judicatory. \u201cPlutarch,\u201d says Parkhurst, \u201cseveral times applies the\n verb in the same view.\u201d Acts xxv. 11, 12, 21, 25. See also Chap. xxvi.\n 32. and xxviii. 19.\n\n In the application of Ecclesia to the christian church, which is the\n most common use of it in the New Testament, it signifies the whole\n church militant\u2014all the elect of God\u2014private societies of\n believers\u2014single organized congregations\u2014several congregations united\n under a Presbytery\u2014and church _rulers_ met in Judicatory.\n\n 1. The church militant is an Ecclesia. Matt. xvi. 18. and Acts ii. 47.\n \u201cThe Lord added to the church daily.\u201d\n\n 2. The whole body of elect and redeemed sinners. Eph. v. 25. \u201cChrist\n also loved the church, and gave himself for it\u201d\u2014ver. 27. \u201cThat he\n might present it to himself a glorious church.\u201d\n\n 3. Two or three private Christians, met for prayer and conference, or\n living together in a family, are an \u0395\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1. Acts xiv. 23. \u201cThey had\n ordained them elders in every church.\u201d The Ecclesia, or Church,\n existed prior to its organization, by the election and ordination of\n rulers. It existed, in this sense, even in private houses. Rom. xvi.\n 5. and Col. iv. 15.\n\n 4. The word signifies an organized congregation. Acts xiv. 23. The\n Ecclesia did not cease to be one, when presbyters were ordained to\n teach and to rule in the congregation.\n\n 5. The word is applied to several congregations regularly\n presbyterated. There is nothing to render this application improper.\n It is no abuse, in any language, of a generic term, to apply it to any\n collection of the individuals belonging to that genus, in a connexion\n which manifests the restriction. The church of Christ in Philadelphia,\n is all Christians in that city, although there should be one hundred\n congregations in it. The church in Corinth, is as intelligible a\n phrase as the church in the house of Nymphas\u2014The church on earth, or,\n the church in glory. This application is not only just, but\n scriptural. The saints in Corinth were one Ecclesia. 1 Cor. i. 2. But\n in Corinth were several congregations. There were more Ecclesias than\n one, xiv. 34. Corinth was a city of great extent, wealth, and\n population. In it were several heathen temples, dedicated to different\n pagan divinities. There were upwards of a thousand prostitutes\n attending at the temple of Venus. In this city, Paul met with uncommon\n success in preaching the gospel. Here he abode nearly two years.\n Considering the rapidity with which the gospel was then spreading,\n attended with miraculous power, is it reasonable, that in Corinth\n there was yet but one congregation of professed Christians? In the\n present day, without any supernatural, or even uncommon success, it is\n not singular for a preacher, in a large city, to collect in a few\n years a congregation of religious professors. At the first sermon of\n Paul, numbers were converted. After this, the Lord informs him, he has\n \u201cmuch people in this city.\u201d Here were several pastors\u2014public officers\n with a diversity of tongues, suited to the wants of the church; yet,\n when Paul wrote his epistle, all the congregations, although differing\n about the merits of their respective founders, are called one\n Ecclesia. In a similar sense is the word applied to the church at\n Ephesus, at Antioch, and Jerusalem.\n\n 6. \u0395\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1 is applied to an _assembly_ of elders. Matt. xviii. 17.\n The constitution of the Jewish courts is known. Each synagogue had its\n elders and officers. The inferior courts were subordinate to the\n Sanhedrim. Never were cases decided by the populace. Our Redeemer\n spoke in the common language of Judea. He referred to the synagogue\n court. When translated into Greek, what other name should be given to\n this Judicatory, than the one given, Ecclesia? There is no\n misunderstanding of this text, by one who impartially considers the\n connexion. There are in the church authorized _rulers_, distinct from\n the _ruled_. The rulers, and not the ruled, must ultimately determine\n controversies. To officers, was committed the power of the keys\u2014the\n power of binding and loosing; and this _Ecclesia_, ver. 17., has the\n power of _binding and loosing_, ver. 18.\u2014and it may consist even of\n two or three persons, ver. 20. The whole passage is a directory for\n the application of ecclesiastic power conferred upon church officers.\n Ch. xvi. 19. I shall close this note, by a quotation from the lectures\n of Dr. Campbell, of Aberdeen. It must appear extraordinary from the\n pen of such a scholar. \u201cBut in any intermediate sense between a single\n congregation and the whole community of Christians, not one instance\n can be brought of the application of the word \u0395\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1, in sacred\n writ. If any impartial hearer is not satisfied on this point, let him\n examine every passage in the New Testament, wherein the word we render\n church is to be found; let him canvas in the writings of the Old\n Testament every sentence wherein the correspondent word occurs, and if\n he find a _single passage_, wherein it clearly means either the\n priest-hood, or the rulers of the nation, or any thing that can be\n called a church representative, let him fairly admit the distinction\n as scriptural and proper.\u201d\n\n MC\u2019LEOD\u2019S CATECHISM.\n\nFootnote 265:\n\n _The Papists, indeed, pretend that there is no other church in the\n world, but that which they style catholic and visible, of which the\n bishop of Rome is the head; but we may say, in answer to this vain\n boast, as it is said concerning the church in Sardis, in Rev._ iii.\n _1._ Thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. _Protestants,\n though they speak oftentimes of the visible church as one, yet they\n don\u2019t deny but that there are many particular churches contained in\n it. See the assembly\u2019s Confession of faith, chap. 25. \u00a7 4._\n\nFootnote 266:\n\n _Vid. Cypr. de Laps. cap. 1. \u00a7 13._\n\nFootnote 267:\n\n _See his Works, Vol. I. page 924, 925._\n\nFootnote 268:\n\n _These were called_ \u05d1\u05d8\u05dc\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd _Otiosi. See Lightfoot\u2019s Works, Vol. I.\n page 610-613. & Vitring. de Synag. Vet. page 530, & seq. And Lightfoot\n says, from one of the Talmuds, that there were no less than 460\n synagogues in Jerusalem, Vol. I page 363, 370. and that the land was\n full of them; in which they met every Sabbath, and some other days of\n the week._\n\nFootnote 269:\n\n _See more of this in those pages of Lightfoot before referred to._\n\nFootnote 270:\n\n \u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c5\u03c7\u03b1\u03b9, _Proseuch\u00e6_. \u0395\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1, \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b5\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1, _Oratoria_.\n\nFootnote 271:\n\n _See Mede\u2019s Works, Vol. I. Book I. Disc. 8._\n\nFootnote 272:\n\n _See Vol. I. page 608._\n\nFootnote 273:\n\n \u0395\u03bd \u03c4\u03b7 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c5\u03b5\u03c7\u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5, _in proseucha Dei_.\n\nFootnote 274:\n\n _See Lightfoot on Acts_ ii. _5. Vol. I. page 751, 752._\n\nFootnote 275:\n\n _See Quest. CLXX. CLXXIV._\n\nFootnote 276:\n\n _Imperium in imperio._\n\nFootnote 277:\n\n \u0391\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 278:\n\n _The former of these Jewish writers call_ \u05e0\u05d3\u05d5\u05d9 Niddui; _the latter\n they call_ \u05d7\u05e8\u05dd Cherem, _or_ \u05e9\u05de\u05ea\u05d0 Scammatha, _and was performed with\n several execrations, by which they, as it were, bound them over to\n suffer both temporal and eternal punishments. See Lightfoot\u2019s Hor\u00e6\n Hebr. & Talmud. in 1 Cor._ v. _5._\n\nFootnote 279:\n\n _See more on this subject in Vitringa de Synagog. Vet. Pag. 745. and\n also the form used, and the instrument drawn up, when a person was\n excommunicated and anathematized, in Selden de jure Nat. & Gent. Lib.\n IV. cap. 7. and Buxt. Lex. Talm. in voce CHEREM._\n\nFootnote 280:\n\n _See an account of the manner of their excommunication, and the curse\n denounced against them at that time, and the first cause of it, taken\n from Josephus, and other Jewish writers, in Lightfoot\u2019s Works, Vol.\n II. Pag. 538-540. and Vol. I. Pag. 599._\n\nFootnote 281:\n\n _Vid. Tert. Apol. cap. 39._ Summum futuri judicii pr\u00e6judicium.\n\nFootnote 282:\n\n _Vid. Cypr. de Orat. Dom._ Timendum est, & orandum, ne dum quis\n abstentus separatur a Christi corpore, procul remaneat a salute.\n\nFootnote 283:\n\n _Vid. Cave\u2019s Prim. Christ. Part. III. cap. 5._\n\nFootnote 284:\n\n _Justin Martyr tells the Jews, (Vid. ejusd. Colloq. cum Tryph.) that\n the church, in his time, had the gift of prophecy; which Eusebius (in\n Hist. Eccles. Lib. IV. cap. 17.) takes notice of, and, doubtless\n believed it to be true in fact, though it be very much questioned\n whether there were any such thing in the fourth century, in which he\n lived. Gregory Nyssen, and Basil, who lived a little after Eusebius,\n assert, that there were many miracles wrought in the third century, by\n Gregory of Neo-cesarea, for which reason he is called Thaumaturgus;\n though it is not improbable that they might be imposed on in some\n things, which they relate concerning him, especially when they compare\n him with the apostles, and ancient prophets, not excepting Moses\n himself in this respect; and, it is certain, many things are related,\n of his miracles, which seem too fabulous to obtain credit; yet there\n is ground enough, from all that they say, to suppose that he wrought\n some, and that therefore, in his time, they were not wholly ceased.\n (Vid. Greg. Nyss. in cit. Greg. Thaum. and Basil de Sp. Sanct. cap.\n 29.) And Origen affirms, that, in his time, the Christians had a power\n to perform many miraculous cures, and to foretell things to come,\n (Vid. Lib. I. contr. Cels.)_ \u039a\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03c4\u03b9 \u03b9\u03c7\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c9\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03be\u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\n \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03bf\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf \u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03c4\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd..\n _If this had not been true, Celsus, who wanted neither malice, nor a\n will to oppose, would certainly have detected the fallacy. And\n Tertullian, (Vid. Apologet. cap. 23.) appeals to it for the proof of\n the Christian religion, offering to lay his life and reputation at\n stake, if the Christians, when publicly calling upon God, did not cure\n those who were possessed with devils._\n\nFootnote 285:\n\n \u201cThe \u0391\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 is an extraordinary ambassador of Christ. He was\n commissioned for extraordinary purposes. Like the generals of a\n victorious army, the apostles exercised, in the name of their King,\n authority throughout all parts of the vanquished empire, until the\n regular magistracy was organized and fully settled. They have no\n successors in this respect. The presbyter is fully competent to all\n ordinary administrations. In relation to such cases, the apostles\n themselves are no more than presbyters. 1 Pet. v. 1.\n\n Church government is subordinate to evangelic doctrine. The power\n given to the apostles, was intended solely for subserviency to their\n preaching. 2 Cor. xiii. 8. _Teaching_ is the _highest dignity_ in the\n church, because it is the most useful and laborious service. Preaching\n was the principal work of the apostles. The ambition of prelates has\n inverted this divine order. Preaching is the meanest service in the\n popish and episcopal churches. It is merely subservient to the\n government of bishops and of popes. The bishops exalt the mean above\n the end. Government is, with them, the principal part of religion. To\n be in power is more dignified than to edify.\n\n Apostolic authority was founded upon apostolic gifts. God was the\n author of both, and both were subservient to teaching. None can\n pretend to a succession of apostolic power, without a succession of\n the gifts which qualified for it.\n\n The evangelists were extraordinary ministers. As ordained presbyters,\n they exercised the ordinary power of the pastor. 1 Tim. iv. 14. Their\n principal work was teaching, and organizing churches, by apostolic\n direction. The ordinary ministers stood in need of this assistance.\n They had not, as yet, the New Testament revelation in writing. The\n evangelists, in part, supplied this defect. Timothy would have been,\n to the churches which he visited, what the epistles sent to him by\n Paul, are to us\u2014a directory upon which we may depend.\n\n \u0395\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 is a name of office. It is borrowed from the synagogue \u05d7\u05d6\u05df,\n (Chazan, _overseer_.) Maimonides de Sanhed. Cap. 4. describes him, as\n \u2018the presbyter who labours in word and doctrine.\u2019 Bishop and\n presbyter, or, as our translation sometimes reads, overseers and\n elders, are different names of the same officer. Acts xx. 17-28.\n Presbyter is expressive of the authority, and episcopos, of the duty,\n of the pastor.\n\n The angel of the church is analogous to the SELIH-JEBUR of the\n synagogue. The \u05e9\u05dc\u05d9\u05d7 \u05e6\u05d1\u05d5\u05e8 was the minister whose office it was publicly\n to read and explain the law and the prophets. The duties of the\n christian minister may be known, by the names given to him in the\n scriptures. The names which are divinely given to men, are always\n expressive of some important article of their conduct and character.\n _Presbyter_ is a term of power, and points out the _ruler_; _pastor_\n points out a public _purveyor_ of spiritual provisions for the church;\n _bishop_, the spiritual _inspector_ of the state of the congregation;\n _teacher_, the public _instructor_ of the congregation; and _angel_,\n the _messenger_ of God to men. All these characters unite in the\n minister of the gospel. By each of these names is he known in the\n scriptures.\n\n \u0394\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03b7\u03bf\u03c2, and its parent Greek verb, are derived from the Hebrew \u05db\u05d4\u05df,\n to minister. Diaconos, is _one who renders a service_. It is applied,\n in the New Testament, to the Redeemer himself. Rom. xv. 8.\u2014To any\n religious worshipper. John xii. 26.\u2014To women useful in religious\n concerns. Rom. xvi. 1.\u2014To civil rulers. Rom. xiii. 4.\u2014To all ministers\n of religion, whether extraordinary as apostles, or ordinary pastors. 1\n Cor. iii. 5. Acts i. 14. Col. i. 7.\n\n Every person, public or private, male or female, who renders any\n service to another, is a _deacon_. But, besides this general use of\n the word, it is a _term of office_, in the church.\u201d\n\n M\u2019LEOD\u2019S ECCL. CAT.\n\nFootnote 286:\n\n _See Quest._ clviii. clix.\n\nFootnote 287:\n\n \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 288:\n\n \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 289:\n\n _Legatus._\n\nFootnote 290:\n\n _See Calderwood Altar. Damsc. Jameson\u2019s fundamentals of the hierarchy\n examined; Forrester\u2019s hierarchical bishop\u2019s claim, &c. and Clarkson\u2019s\n no evidence for diocesan churches; and his diocesan churches not yet\n discovered, &c._\n\nFootnote 291:\n\n _See Clarkson\u2019s primitive episcopacy, chap. 7. in which he observes,\n that it was decreed, by some councils, that they should continue in\n this state of probation, at least, two or three years; and that\n Augustin continued so long a Catechumen, as appears from the account\n that Father gives of his age, when converted to Christianity, and\n afterwards received into the church by Ambrose._\n\nFootnote 292:\n\n _See Primitive Episcopacy, Page 189-197._\n\nFootnote 293:\n\n _See Clarkson\u2019s Primitive Episcopacy, chap. 8. in which he refers to\n several places, in the writings of that excellent Father, to the same\n purpose._\n\nFootnote 294:\n\n _See Stillingfleet Iren. Page 276._\n\nFootnote 295:\n\n \u201cMore than _fourteen hundred years ago_ the superiority of the\n Prelates to Presbyters was attacked, in the most direct and open\n manner, as having no authority from our Lord Jesus Christ. The banner\n of opposition was raised not by a mean and obscure declaimer; but by a\n most consummate Theologian. \u2018By one who, in the judgment of Erasmus,\n was, without controversy by far the most learned and most eloquent of\n all the Christians; and the prince of Christian Divines.\u2019[296]\u2014By the\n illustrious Jerome.[297]\n\n Thus he lays down both _doctrine_ and _fact_ relative to the\n government of the church, in his commentary on Titus i. 5.\n\n _That thou shouldest ordain Presbyters in every city, as I had\n appointed thee._[298]\u2014What sort of Presbyters ought to be ordained he\n shows afterwards,\u2014_If any be blameless, the husband of one wife_, &c.\n and then adds, _for a bishop must be blameless as the steward of God_,\n &c. A _Presbyter_, therefore, is the _same_ as a _Bishop_: and before\n there were, _by the instigation of the devil_, parties in religion;\n and it was said among different people, _I am of Paul, and I of\n Apollos, and I of Cephas_, the churches were governed by _the joint\n counsel of the Presbyters_. But _afterwards_, when every one accounted\n those whom he baptized as belonging to himself and not to Christ, it\n was _decreed throughout the whole world_, that one, chosen from among\n the Presbyters, should be put over the rest, and that the whole care\n of the church should be committed to him, and the seeds of schisms\n taken away.\n\n \u201cShould any one think that this is my private opinion, and not the\n doctrine of the scriptures, let him read the words of the apostles in\n his epistle to the Philippians; \u2018Paul and Timotheus, the servants of\n Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi,\n with the bishops and deacons,\u2019 &c. Philippi, is a _single_ city of\n Macedonia; and certainly in one city there could not be _several\n bishops_ as they are now styled; but as they, at that time, called the\n very same persons bishops whom they called Presbyters, the Apostle has\n spoken without distinction of bishops as Presbyters.\n\n \u201cShould this matter yet appear doubtful to any one, unless it be\n proved by an additional testimony; it is written in the acts of the\n Apostles, that when Paul had come to Miletum, he sent to Ephesus and\n called the Presbyters of that church, and among other things said to\n them, \u2018take heed to yourselves and to all the flock in which the Holy\n Spirit hath made you Bishops.\u2019 Take particular notice, that calling\n the PRESBYTERS of the single city of Ephesus, he afterwards names the\n same persons BISHOPS.\u201d After further quotations from the epistle to\n the Hebrews, and from Peter, he proceeds: \u201cOur intention in these\n remarks is to show that, among the ancients, _Presbyters and Bishops\n were_ THE VERY SAME. But that BY LITTLE AND LITTLE, that the plants of\n dissensions might be plucked up, the whole concern was devolved upon\n an individual. As the Presbyters, therefore, KNOW that they are\n subjected, BY THE CUSTOM OF THE CHURCH, to him who is set over them;\n so let the Bishops know, that they are greater than Presbyters MORE BY\n CUSTOM, than by ANY REAL APPOINTMENT of CHRIST.\u201d\n\n He pursues the same argument, with great point, in his famous Epistle\n to Evagrius, asserting and proving from the Scriptures, that in the\n beginning and during the Apostles\u2019 days, a Bishop and a Presbyter were\n the same thing. He then goes on: \u201cAs to the fact, that AFTERWARDS, one\n was ELECTED to preside over the rest, this was done as a remedy\n against schism; lest every one drawing his proselytes to himself,\n should rend the church of Christ. For even at Alexandria, from the\n Evangelist Mark to the Bishops Heraclas and Dionysius, the Presbyters\n always chose one of their number, placed him in a superior station,\n and gave him the title of Bishop: in the same manner as if an army\n should MAKE an emperor; or the deacons should choose from among\n themselves, one whom they knew to be particularly active, and should\n call him ARCH-DEACON. For, excepting ordination, what is done by a\n Bishop, which may not be done by a Presbyter? Nor is it to be\n supposed, that the church should be one thing at Rome, and another in\n all the world besides. Both France and Britain, and Africa, and\n Persia, and the East, and India, and all the barbarous nations worship\n one Christ, observe one rule of truth. If you demand authority, the\n globe is greater than a city. Wherever a Bishop shall be found,\n whether a Rome, or Eugubium, or Constantinople, or Rhegium, or\n Alexandria, or Tanis, he has the same pretensions, the same\n priesthood.\u201d[299]\n\n Here is an account of the origin and progress of Episcopacy, by a\n Father whom the Episcopalians themselves admit to have been the most\n able and learned man of his age; and how contradictory it is to their\n own account, the reader will be at no loss to perceive, when he shall\n have followed us through an analysis of its several parts.\n\n 1. JEROME expressly denies the superiority of Bishops to Presbyters,\n by _divine right_. To prove his assertion on this head, he goes\n directly to the scriptures; and argues, as the advocates of parity do,\n from the interchangeable titles of Bishop and Presbyters; from the\n _directions_ given to them without the least intimation of difference\n in their authority; and from the _powers_ of Presbyters, undisputed in\n his day.\n\n 2. JEROME states it as an _historical fact_, that, in the original\n constitution of the church, before the devil had as much influence as\n he acquired afterwards, _the churches were governed by the joint\n counsels of the Presbyters_.\n\n 3. JEROME states it as an _historical fact_, that this government of\n the churches, _by Presbyters alone_, continued until, for the avoiding\n of scandalous quarrels and schisms, it was thought expedient to\n _alter_ it. \u201c_Afterwards_,\u201d says he, \u201cwhen every one accounted those\n whom he baptized as belonging to himself, and not to Christ, it was\n _decreed throughout the whole world_, that one, chosen from among the\n Presbyters, should be put over the rest, and that the whole care of\n the church should be committed to him.\u201d\n\n 4. JEROME states it as an _historical fact_, that this change in the\n government of the church\u2014this creation of a superior order of\n ministers, took place, not at once, but _by degrees_\u2014\u201c_Paulatim_,\u201d\n says he, \u201cby little and little.\u201d The precise date on which this\n innovation upon primitive order _commenced_, he does not mention; but\n he says positively, that it did not take place till the factious\n spirit of the Corinthians had spread itself in different countries, to\n an alarming extent. \u201c_In populis_,\u201d is his expression. Assuredly, this\n was not the work of a day. It had not been accomplished when the\n apostolic epistles were written, because Jerome appeals to these for\n proof that the churches were then governed by the joint counsels of\n Presbyters; and it is incredible that such ruinous dissensions, had\n they existed, should not have been noticed in letters to others beside\n the Corinthians. The disease indeed, was of a nature to spread\n rapidly; but still it must have time to travel. With all the zeal of\n Satan himself, and of a parcel of wicked or foolish clergymen to help\n him, it could not march from people to people, and clime to clime, but\n in a course of years. If Episcopacy was the _apostolic_ cure for\n schism, the contagion must have smitten the nations like a flash of\n lightning. This would have been quite as extraordinary as an\n instantaneous change of government:\u2014No: the progress of the mischief\n was gradual, and so, according to Jerome, was the progress of the\n _remedy_ which the wisdom of the times devised.[300] We agree with\n them, who think that the experiment introduced more evil than it\n banished.\n\n 5. JEROME states as _historical facts_, that the elevation of one\n Presbyter over the others, was a _human contrivance_; was not\n _imposed_ by authority, but _crept in by custom_;\u2014and that the\n Presbyters of his day, _knew_ this very well. _As, therefore_, says\n he, _the Presbyters_ KNOW _that they are subjected to their superior\n by_ CUSTOM, _so let the bishops know that they are above the\n Presbyters, rather by the_ CUSTOM OF THE CHURCH, _than by the Lord\u2019s\n appointment_.\n\n 6. JEROME states it as an _historical fact_, that the first bishops\n were made by the _Presbyters themselves_; and consequently they could\n neither have, nor communicate any authority above that of Presbyters.\n \u201c_Afterwards_,\u201d says he, \u201cto prevent schism, one was _elected_ to\n preside over the rest.\u201d Elected and commissioned by whom? By the\n _Presbyters_: for he immediately gives you a broad fact which it is\n impossible to explain away. \u201cAt Alexandria,\u201d he tells you, \u201cfrom the\n evangelist Mark to the Bishops Heraclas and Dionysius,\u201d i.e. till\n about the middle of the third century, \u201cthe Presbyters _always chose_\n one of their number, \u201d_placed him in a superior station_, and gave him\n the title of _Bishop_.\u201c\n\n CHRISTIAN\u2019S MAGAZINE.\n\nFootnote 296:\n\n We quote the words of one who was assuredly no friend to our cause,\n vid. Cave, _His. Litt. Script: Eccles._ p 171. Ed 1720. Fol.\n\nFootnote 297:\n\n Prosper, who was nearly his cotemporary, calls him _magister mundi_:\n i. e. the teacher of the world. _Ib._\n\nFootnote 298:\n\n \u201cQui qualis Presbyter debeat ordinari, in consequentibus disserens hoc\n ait: Si quis est sine crimine, unius uxoris vir,\u201d et c\u00e6tera: postea\n intulit, \u201cOportet. n. Episcopum sine crimine esse, tanquam Dei\n dispensatorem.\u201d Idem est ergo Presbyter, qui et Episcopus, et antequam\n _diaboli instinctu_, studia in religione fierent, et diceretur in\n populis: \u201cEgo sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego autem Ceph\u00e6:\u201d _communi\n Presbyterorum consilio_ ecclesi\u00e6 gubernabantur. Postquam vero\n unusquisque eos, quos baptizaverat, suos putabat esse, non Christi:\n _in toto orbe decretum est, ut unus de Presbyteris electus\n superponeretur c\u0153teris, ad quem omnis ecclesia\u0153 cura pertineret_ et\n schismatum semina tollerentur. Putet aliquis non scripturarum, sed\n nostram, esse sententiam Episcopum et Presbyterum unum esse; et aliud\n \u00e6tatis, aliud esse nomen officii: relegat Apostoli ad Philipponses\n verba dicentis: Paulus et Timotheus servi Jesu Christi, omnibus\n sanctis in Christo Jesu, qui sunt Philippis, cum Episcopis et\n Diaconis, gratia vobis et pax, et reliqua. Philippi _una_ est urbs\n Macedoni\u00e6, et certe in una civitate _plures_ ut nuncupantur, _Episcopi\n esse non poterant_. Sed quia _eosdem Episcopos illo tempore_ quos et\n _Presbyteros_ appellabant, propterea indifferenter de Episcopis quasi\n de Presbyteris est locutus. Adhuc hoc alicui videatur ambiguum, nisi\n altero testimonio comprobetur. In Actibus Apostolorum scriptum est,\n quod cum venisset Apostolus Miletum, miserit Ephesum, et vocaverit\n Presbyteros eccslesi\u00e6 ejusdem, quibus postea inter c\u00e6tera sit locutus:\n _attendite vobis, et omni gregi in quo vos Spiritus sanctus posuit\n Episcopos, pascere ecclesiam Domini quam acquisivit per sanguinem\n suum_. Et hoc diligentius observate, quo modo _unius civitatis_ Ephesi\n _Presbyteros_ vocans, postea eosdem _Episcopos_ dixerit\u2014H\u00e6c propterea,\n ut ostenderemus _apud veteres_ eosdem fuisse Presbyteros quos et\n Episcopos. _Paulatim_ vero, ut dissensionum plantaria evellerentur, ad\n _unum_ omnem solicitudinem esse delatam.\u2014Sicut ergo Presbyteri _sciunt\n se ex ecclesi\u0153 consuetudine_ ei, qui sibi propositus fuerit, esse\n subjectos, ita Episcopi noverint se _magis consuetudine quam\n dispositionis dominic\u0153 veritate_, Presbyteris esse majores. _Hieronymi\n Com: in Tit: I. 1. Opp. Tom._ VI. p. 168, _ed. Victorii, Paris, 1623.\n Fol._\n\nFootnote 299:\n\n _Vid. Blondel. Apol. pro Sent. Hieron._\n\nFootnote 300:\n\n Our opponents, who contend that nothing can be concluded from the\n promiscuous use of the scriptural titles of office, are yet compelled\n to acknowledge that _Bishop_ and _Presbyter_ were _afterwards_\n separated and restricted, the former to the superior, and the latter\n to the inferior order of ministers. We would ask them _when_ and _why_\n this was done? If it was not necessary to distinguish these officers\n by specific titles in the apostles\u2019 day, what necessity was there for\n such a distinction afterwards? The church might have gone on, as she\n began, to this very hour; and what would have been the harm? Nay,\n there _was_ a necessity for the distinction; and Jerome has blown the\n secret. When one of the Presbyters was set over the heads of the\n others, there was a _new officer_ and he wanted a _name_. So they\n appropriated the term _Bishop_ to him; and thus avoided the _odium_ of\n _inventing_ a title unknown to the scripture. The people, no doubt,\n were told that there was no material alteration in the scriptural\n order; and hearing nothing but a name to which they had always been\n accustomed, they were the less startled.\n\nFootnote 301:\n\n _See Page 522, ante. Some, indeed, choose to say, that persons that\n stand more immediately related to their respective churches, are\n pastors in the catholic church, though not of it; which, if the words\n be rightly understood, does not militate against what we assert._ \u039f\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b4\u03b9 \u03bf \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5. Ignat. epist. ad\n Philad. p. 42.\n\nFootnote 302:\n\n \u03a3\u03c5\u03bd\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c8\u03b7\u03c6\u03b9\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 \u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd, _which Beza renders_,\n Communibus calculis allectus est cum undecem Apostolis.\n\nFootnote 303:\n\n \u03a7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4 \u03b5\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd, Cum ipsi per\n suffragia creassent per singulas ecclesias Presbyteros. _The learned\n Dr. Owen, in his True Nature of a Gospel-church_, &c. _Page 68-71.\n proves that the word_ \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c9, _in several Greek writers, is used\n to signify the choice of a person to office by suffrage, or vote,\n which was done by lifting up the hand. And he observes, that all our\n old English translations render the words, in this text, ordaining or\n creating elders by the suffrage of the disciples. And he farther\n observes, that the word is but once more used in the New Testament_,\n viz. _in 2 Cor._ viii. _19. where it is rendered, he was chosen_, &c.\n _See more to this purpose in the place but now mentioned._\n\nFootnote 304:\n\n \u03a7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c9 signifies, to hold out the hand. It is compounded of \u03a7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1,\n the hand, and \u03a4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9, to extend. The action, holding out the hand, is\n expressive of choice and resolution. It marks a _decision of the\n will_, whether intimated or executed.\n\n The word \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c9, is used to signify divine appointment. Acts x.\n 41. \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b5\u03c9, Human choice, however expressed. 2 Cor. viii. 19. And\n 3dly, it signifies to elect to office, by holding up the right hand.\n \u201cAt Athens, some of the magistrates were called \u03a7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9, because\n they were elected by the people in this manner.\u201d Parkhurst.\n\n The _right of choosing_ spiritual rulers, is in the christian people;\n the _power of ordination_, in those who are already ordained.\n \u03a7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2, Acts xiv. 23, embraces election and consequent\n ordination of elders in the church.\n\n The hand is the instrument of power. \u03a7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1 is used in scripture for\n ministerial action. Acts xiv. 3. Luke iv. 11.\n\n Hence, imposition of hands is a communication of power. This\n significant action was known to the patriarchs. Gen. xlviii. 14.\n\n The presbyters of the synagogue were ordained by the laying on of\n hands. In its scriptural usage, this action is universally expressive\n of some communication from him who lays on the hand, to him upon whom\n it is laid. In any other sense, it is a common, and not a religious\n action.\n\n 1. It is a mean of communicating bodily vigour. Mark vi. 5.\n\n 2. It is a communication of special blessing. Gen. xlviii. 14. Mark x.\n 16.\n\n 3. It is a mean of imparting the power of miracles\u2014the gifts of the\n Holy Ghost. Acts viii. 17.\n\n 4. And it is a communication of ministerial authority. Numb. xxvii.\n 18. 23. Deut. xxxiv. 9. 1 Tim. v. 22. Physical strength, special\n blessing, miraculous power, and moral authority, have, according to\n divine appointment, been communicated by the laying on of hands. These\n things have also been otherwise communicated. God selects means\n adequate to the end.\n\n All the communications mentioned in scripture as made by the\n imposition of hands, are of an extraordinary kind, except one\u2014that of\n authority. This is alone capable of being regulated by ordinary\n agency.\n\n M\u2019LEOD\u2019S ECCL. CAT.\n\nFootnote 305:\n\n _See the True Nature of a Gospel church, Page 78-83. where it appears,\n from Ignatius, Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian, that this was\n practised in the three first centuries; and from Blondel\u2019s Apology,\n which he refers to, that it was continued in some following ages._\n\nFootnote 306:\n\n _Vid. Aug. de Bapt. contr. Donat. Lib. III. cap. 6. Quid est aliud\n manus impositio quam oratio super hominem?_\n\nFootnote 307:\n\n _Vid. Greg. Naz. Epist. 42. ad Procop._\n\nFootnote 308:\n\n _Near the latter end of the second century, Pant\u00e6nus was a celebrated\n catechist, in the school supported by the church at Alexandria; and\n Clemens Alexandrinus was his first scholar, and afterwards succeeded\n him in the work of a teacher; and Origen was Clement\u2019s scholar, and\n was afterwards employed in the same work in that school. And, in the\n fourth century, Athanasius, who strenuously defended the faith, in the\n council of Nice, against Arius, had his education in the same school;\n and Didymus, who flourished about the middle of that century, was a\n catechist therein, and Jerom and Ruffinus were his scholars._\n\nFootnote 309:\n\n _So the vulgar Latin translation renders the word_ \u039a\u03b1\u03c4\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9, Ei qui\n se catechizat.\n\nFootnote 310:\n\n _Vid. Hieron. in Ephes. iv. 11. Non ait alios pastores, and alios\n magistros; sed alios pastores, et Magistros, ut qui pastor est, esse\n debeat & magister; nec in ecclesiis pastoris sibi nomen assumere, nisi\n posset docere quos pascit. & Aug. epist. 59. pastores & doctores\n eosdem puto esse, ut non alios pastores alios doctores intelligamus,\n sed ideo cum pr\u00e6dixisset pastores subjunxisse doctores ut\n intelligerent pastores ad officium suum pertinere doctrinam._\n\nFootnote 311:\n\n _The particle_ \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 _seems to be exegetical, and ought to be rendered_\n even. _See the note in Vol. I, page 318. The words are_, \u03b5\u03b4\u03c9\u03ba\u03b5 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bc\u03b7\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 312:\n\n _Vid. Tertull. de bapt. baptizandi habet jus episcopus, doctrin\u00e6\n presbyteri & diaconi._\n\nFootnote 313:\n\n CHRIST has not lodged church-power in the hands of _diocesan bishops_,\n that bear rule over preaching presbyters. (1.) The scriptures\n expressly forbid all _lordly_ dominion in the church, 3 John 9. 1 Pet.\n v. 3. Luke xxii. 25, 26. Matt. xx. 25, 26. Not _tyrannical_, but\n _lordly_ dominion, however mild, is here prohibited. The Greek word\n expressing it is used by the SEVENTY in Gen. i. 28. Psalm lxxii. 8.\n cx. 2. to express dominion, which none dare pretend to be\n _tyrannical_.\u2014How absurd to imagine, that the mother of James and John\n asked a _tyrannical_ power for her sons from Christ! Or that he, who\n acknowledged C\u00e6sar\u2019s authority, Matt. xxii. 21. would represent all\n heathen rulers as _tyrants!_ (2.) Bishops and Presbyters are\n represented as the very same officers in scripture. Several _bishops_\n or _overseers_ were at Ephesus, all of whom are called _elders_ or\n _presbyters_, Acts xx. 17, 28. Several bishops governed the church in\n Philippi, no great city, having no inferior officers but deacons,\n Phil. i. 1. 1 Tim. iii. 3. The reason why _elders_ or _presbyters_\n must be of good report is, that _bishops_ must be blameless; which\n marks them the same, Tit. i. 5, 6. Elders must feed God\u2019s flock\n EPISCOPOUNTES, _acting the part of bishops over them_, 1 Pet. v. 2, 3.\n Judas had a _bishopric_, Acts i. 20. Peter and John, not inferior\n apostles, were _presbyters_, 1 Pet. v. 1. 2 John i. (3.) The power of\n _ordaining pastors_, which diocesans claim for their distinguishing\n prerogative, is, by the scripture, placed in no standing\n church-officer, but in the presbytery, or _meeting of elders_. Nay,\n where elders were ordained, even the apostles did not by themselves\n ordain pastors, but concurred as members of the presbytery, 2 Tim. i.\n 6. 1 Tim. iv. 14.\n\n To anticipate objections, it must be observed, (1.) That the TWELVE\n and the SEVENTY disciples whom Christ, before his death, appointed to\n preach the gospel, had all of them _equal_ power and authority, and\n but a _temporary_ commission, Matt. x. Luke x. 1-21. (2.) The\n apostleship for life bestowed on several after his resurrection, was\n an extraordinary office, in which they had no successors. (3.) That\n neither Timothy nor Titus were fixed diocesans, but _itinerant_\n evangelists, who either travelled with the apostles, or were sent by\n them to supply their place, 1 Thess. i. 1. 2 Thess. i. 1. Rom. xvi.\n 21. Heb. xiii. 23. Col. i. 1. Phil. ii. 19. 2 Cor. i. 1. 1 Cor. iv.\n 17. xvi. 10. 2 Cor. i. 19. iii. 2. 1 Tim. i. 3. 2 Tim. iv. 9, 10. 12.\n Gal. ii. 3. 2 Cor. ii. 13. vii. 6, 7. viii. 16, 23. xii. 18. Tit. iii.\n 12. (4.) That the _angels_ of the Asian churches were not diocesan\n bishops, but their pastors in general: and hence one angel is\n sometimes addressed as _several_ persons, Rev. ii. 10, 24. (5.) That\n for the first three hundred years of the Christian church, such as\n moderated in their courts, or were more aged, or had more noted\n congregations, were often called _bishops_: and, in the last case, had\n other ordained preachers to assist them, and to officiate in case of\n their imprisonment or death. But we have no decisive proof of any\n diocesan lords. Nor do any, except the principal pastors of Rome, seem\n to have struggled hard for such a pre-eminence. (6.) That no\n Protestant church, except in England and Ireland, is governed by\n diocesan bishops, properly so called, though indeed the almost nominal\n ones of Sweden and Denmark would gladly be such. (7.) That almost all\n the noted primitive doctors of the Christian church grant that\n diocesan Episcopacy has no foundation in scripture. (8.) Scarcely one\n argument hath ever been produced for the support of diocesan\n Episcopacy, but hath been effectually overturned by some other learned\n prelatist; nor indeed can they combat the Popish government without\n destroying their own. (9.) Diocesan bishops, as such, have never been\n any honour to the church, or centre of unity: but have often been\n introducers and supporters of Popish abominations.\n\n IF Christ has not lodged church-power in the _community of the\n faithful_, or in _magistrates_, or in _diocesan bishops_, he must have\n placed it in _officers of his own appointment_, Matt. xvi. 19. xviii.\n 18-20. 2 Cor. x. 8. Heb. xiii. 7, 17. 1 Tim. v. 17. 1 Thess. v.\n 12.\u2014Some of these were EXTRAORDINARY, appointed for the first erection\n of the gospel-church. (1.) APOSTLES, who had an immediate commission\n from Christ equally extended to all nations, as occasions\n offered,\u2014were privileged with an infallibility in their doctrine;\u2014had\n a constant power of working miracles as directed by God, and of\n speaking languages which they had never learned;\u2014had power to confer\n the miraculous influences of the Holy Ghost on others, and of sending\n forth evangelists, or by themselves ordaining presbyters and deacons,\n Mark xvi. 15-20. Acts i.-xxi. (2.) EVANGELISTS, who assisted the\n apostles in planting or watering churches, and, by their direction,\n ordained presbyters and deacons, and erected judicatories in infant\n churches. (3.) PROPHETS, who explained dark passages of scripture, and\n sometimes foretold future events, 1 Cor. xiv. 29-32. Acts xi. 28. xxi.\n 10, 11.\n\n Others of these officers were ORDINARY, which are divided into\n BISHOPS, OVERSEERS or ELDERS, and DEACONS. Bishops or elders are\n subdivided into _pastors_, or _elders that labour in word and\n doctrine_, and _elders_ that only _rule well_. Their name BISHOP or\n OVERSEER marks their authority over and inspection of others.\n PRESBYTER or ELDER denotes their gravity, prudence, and experience,\n and their being but subordinate rulers under Christ to declare and\n execute his laws. Thus we have three distinct kinds of\n church-officers, PASTORS, RULING ELDERS, and DEACONS. The office of\n the first includes the power of the two latter; and that of the second\n the power of the last, but not the distinguishing power of the first;\n and the office of deacons includes no power peculiar to either of the\n two preceding offices.\n\n I. The _pastoral office_ is a spiritual relation to the Christian\n church, empowering men to preach the gospel, dispense the sacraments,\n and concur in acts of governing church-members. Its divine institution\n is evident. (1.) God furnishes and appoints _pastors_, _teachers_,\n _bishops_ or _overseers_, in the church, 1 Cor. xii. 28. Eph. iv. 11.\n Acts xx. 28. Rom. xii. 6-8. (2.) The qualifications of such officers\n are _divinely_ prescribed, 1 Tim. iii. 1-8. v. 21, 22. Tit. i. 5-9.\n (3.) Such characters are, by the Holy Ghost, ascribed to them, as\n import authority and call to their word, as _pastors_, _teachers_,\n _rulers_, _stewards_, _preachers_, _heralds_, _ambassadors_,\n _bishops_, Eph. iv. 11. 1 Cor. xii. 28. 1 Tim. v. 17. 1 Cor. iv. 1, 2.\n Luke xii. 42. Rom. x. 15. 2 Cor. v. 19, 20. Acts xx. 28. 1 Pet. v. 2,\n 3. Rev. i. 20. 1 Thess. v. 12. Col. i. 7. Eph. vi. 21. Matt. ix. 38.\n (4.) The manner of their entrance on their office, by the call of the\n church and ordination of the presbytery, is divinely prescribed, Acts\n i. 15-26. xiv. 23. 1 Tim. iv. 14. (5.) The work which belongs to this\n office is divinely prescribed, 1 Pet. v. 2, 3. 1 Tim. iv. 14-16. Acts\n vi. 2, 4. 2 Tim. iv. 2. ii. 25, 26. 2 Cor. xii. 15. 1 Cor. 9, 16, 17.\n Ezek. xxxiv. 2, 4. Heb. xiii. 17. Acts xxvi. 17, 18. Matt. xxviii. 19,\n 20. 1 Cor. xi. 23-26. 2 Tim. ii. 2. Cor. v. 4, 13. Tit. iii. 10. 2\n Cor. ii. 6, 7. (6.) People\u2019s behaviour towards ministers is prescribed\n by God, 1 Thess. v. 12, 13. 1 Tim. v. 17. Heb. xiii. 7, 17. Gal. vi.\n 6. 1 Cor. ix. 7-19. 2 Thess. iii. 1. (7.) God has promised them\n encouragement in, and a reward of their work, 2 Cor. iii. 3, 5. 6.\n Rev. ii. 1. Matt. xxviii. 20. xvi. 19. John xx. 23. Matt. x. 40-42.\n Luke x. 16. John xiii. 20. 2 Tim. iv. 7, 8.\n\n The office of the gospel-ministry is PERPETUAL, continuing till the\n end of the world. (1.) God has provided nothing to supply its place:\n Nor can any bestowal of the Holy Ghost exclude it, any more than it\n did, in the apostolic age, Acts i.-xxi; xxvi. 17, 18. Heb. xi. 40.\n (2.) The necessity of it is _perpetual_. Men are in every age ignorant\n and corrupt; Satan active; heresy and error raging, or ready to spring\n up; gospel-mysteries much unknown; the conversion of sinners,\n edification of saints, and silencing of gainsayers, still necessary, 1\n Tim. iv. 1-3. 2 Tim. iii. 1-7. 2 Thess. ii. 3-12. Acts xxvi. 17, 18.\n Eph. iv. 12-15. Tit. i. 11. (3.) The removal of the gospel-ministry is\n represented as a heavy judgment, which it could not be, any more than\n the abolishing the Jewish ceremonies, unless the perpetual continuance\n of it were necessary, Rev. ii. 5. (4.) God has wonderfully preserved a\n gospel-ministry amidst all the destructive rage and persecution of\n heathens and antichristians, Rev. vi; xi; xii; xiv. (5.) The divine\n ordinances, which are connected with a gospel-ministry, are appointed\n to continue till the end of the world, Eph. iv. 11-13. Matt. xxviii.\n 19, 20. 1 Cor. xi. 26. 1 Tim. vi. 14.\n\n It is requisite to a man\u2019s being a minister of the gospel, that he be\n divinely qualified with, (1.) _Proper abilities_ rendering him apt to\n teach; which includes rational and experimental knowledge of divine\n truths, and being able to explain and inculcate them in a manner\n calculated to enlighten the minds, impress the consciences, and excite\n the affections of his hearers, Eph. iv. 7-11. 1 Cor. ix. 7. iii. 8.\n vi. 19, 20. 1 Tim. iii. 2. 1 Cor. xii. 8. Col. iv. 3, 4. 1 Cor. iv.\n 19. ii. 2, 4, 6, 7, 13. 2 Cor. ii. 14. v. 11. iv. 2, 5. 2 Tim. ii. 15.\n Isa. l. 4. xlix. 1, 2. lviii. 1. Mic. iii. 8. 1 Cor. xiv. 24, 25. Acts\n xxiv. 25. (2.) A blameless, holy, and edifying conversation, 1 Tim.\n iii. 1-8. 2 Tim. ii. 2, 21, 22. Tit. i. 5-9. (3.) Distinguished zeal\n for advancing the glory of God in Christ, and tender compassion to the\n souls of men, Rev. iii. 19. Psalm lxix. 9. cxix. 139. Gal. iv. 18, 19.\n 2 Cor. xii. 14, 15. 1 Thess. ii. 8. 1 Pet. v. 2. Jude 22.\n\n All heads of families, teachers of youth, and even neighbours, ought,\n in a private manner, to instruct those under their charge in the\n truths of the gospel; but none, without being _regularly called_ to\n it, however well qualified, ought to exercise any part of the\n ministerial office. (1.) The scripture plainly distinguishes between\n _gifts_ for, and a _mission_ to that office, John xx. 21, 23. Isa. vi.\n 6, 7, 9. (2.) It most expressly declares a call absolutely necessary\n to render one a public teacher, Rom. x. 15. Heb. v. 4, 6. Jer. xxiii.\n 21, 32. (3.) The character of _preachers_, _heralds_, _ambassadors_,\n _stewards_, _watchmen_, _angels_, _messengers_, &c. necessarily import\n a divine call, 1 Cor. ix. 17. 2 Cor. v. 20. 1 Cor. iv. 1, 2. Heb.\n xiii. 17. Rev. i. 20. (4.) Rules prescribed for the qualifications,\n election, and ordination of gospel-ministers are declared binding\n until the second coming of Christ, 1 Tim. iii. 1-8. v. 21, 22. vi. 13.\n (5.) God severely punished Korah, Saul, Uzza, Uzziah, and the sons of\n Sceva, for their intermedling with the work of the sacred office, Num.\n xvi. 5-11, 32-38, 40. 1 Sam. xiii. 8-14. 1 Chron. xiii. 9, 10. 2\n Chron. xxvi. 16-18. Acts xix. 13-16. (6.) To rush into the ministerial\n office, without a proper call, is inconsistent with a proper\n impression of the awful nature of the work, 2 Cor. iii. 5, 6. ii. 16.\n Ezek. iii. 17-21. xxxiii. 1-20. Rom. i. 1. Gal. i. 15, 16. John iii.\n 27, 28. Heb. xiii. 17. v. 4, 5. and introduces wild disorder and\n error, Gal. ii. 5. (7.) Christ\u2019s manifold connexion with this\n office,\u2014in his being the author of it, Eph. iv. 11, 12. his suspending\n much of the order and edification of his church on it, Acts xx. 28. 1\n Pet. v. 1-3. his including such power and authority in it, Matt. xvi.\n 19. xviii. 18. his committing such an important trust to ministers,\n Col. iv. 17. 1 Tim. vi. 20. his enjoining his people to honour and\n obey them, 1 Tim v. 17. Heb. xiii. 7, 17. and his promising present\n assistance in, and future gracious rewards to their faithful discharge\n of their work,\u2014manifest the necessity of a divine and regular call to\n it, Matt. xxviii. 20. 1 Pet. v. 4.\n\n The call of an ordinary pastor to his work ought to be _two-fold_.\n (1.) A _divine call_, which consists in God\u2019s inwardly inclining his\n heart to it in an humble manner, and by regular means; and which is\n often attended by a train of providences shutting him up to it,\n exclusive of any other. (2.) An _ecclesiastical call_, which consists\n in the election of the Christian people to whom he is to minister, and\n the ordination of the presbytery. That adult Christians have a right\n from Christ to choose their own pastors, is evident: (1.) The church\n being a voluntary society, none imposed upon her members by men, can\n be related to them as their pastor. (2.) None can so well judge what\n gifts are best suited to their spiritual edification as Christians\n themselves. (3.) If men may choose their servants or physicians, why\n hinder Christians from choosing the servants and subordinate\n physicians of their souls? (4.) The scripture allows the election of\n pastors in ordinary cases to adult Christians, and to none else, Acts\n i. 15-26. vi. 1-6. xiv. 23. (5.) Christ requires his people to _try_\n the spirits, which supposes their ability to do so, and their power to\n choose such only as they find most proper to edify their souls, and to\n refuse others, 1 John iv. 1. (6.) The introduction of ministers into\n their office by _Patronage_, of whatever form, has its origin from\n _Popery_; tends to establish a tyranny over men\u2019s consciences, whom\n Christ has made free;\u2014to fill pulpits with naughty, impious, and\n indolent clergymen;\u2014encourages simony, sacrilege, and perjury;\u2014and\n effectually gives Christ the lie, modelling his kingdom after the form\n of those of this world, Ezek. xxxiv. 2-4. Isa. lvi. 9-12. John xviii.\n 36.\u2014The ordination of candidates chosen for the ministerial office is\n not the work of the people, but of the presbytery, 1 Tim. i. 14. 2\n Tim. i. 6. ii. 2. Acts xiii. 1-3. xiv. 23. 1 Tim. v. 21, 22.\n\n The work of pastors, when ordained, is, (1.) With much inward\n compassion and zeal for the welfare of their hearers\u2019 souls, to feed\n them with the truths of Christ, according to their different\n necessities, both publicly and privately, whether in the form of\n sermons, lectures, catechising, or exhortation, when sick, _&c._ 1\n Pet. v. 3. 2 Cor. v. 11. 1 Cor. ix. 16. Phil. i. 17, 24, 25. 1 Tim.\n vi. 20. iii. 15. iv. 15, 16. 2 Tim. iv. 2. Gal. vi. 6. Heb. v. 11, 13.\n 1 Cor. iii. 1. Acts xx. 20, 21, 27, 28, 31, 35. xxvi. 17, 18. Ezek.\n xxxiv. 1-16. iii. 17-21. xxxiii. 1-20. Col. i. 28, 29. Isa. xl. 11. l.\n 4. 1 Thess. ii. 2-12. v. 12. James v. 14. 2 Cor. xi. 28, 29. (2.) To\n administer the sacraments, in a proper manner, to proper persons,\n Matt. xxviii. 19, 20. vii. 6. 1 Cor. xi. 23-29. (3.) To rule over\n their people with impartiality, zeal, meekness, and prudence,\n censuring offenders, and absolving penitents, Heb. xiii. 17. 1 Tim. v.\n 20, 21. i. 20. Tit. iii. 10, 11. Rev. ii. 2, 14, 20. 1 Cor. v. 4, 5. 2\n Cor. ii. 6, 7. (4.) To care and provide for the poor, Gal. ii. 9, 10.\n 1 Tim. vi. 17, 18. 2 Cor. viii; ix. (5.) To give themselves habitually\n to _effectual fervent prayer_ for the church of Christ in general, and\n especially for those of their particular charge, Acts vi. 2, 4. Eph.\n iii. 14-19. i. 15-20. Gal. iv. 19. Col. iv. 12. (6.) To exemplify\n their doctrines and exhortations, in an eminently meek, humble, holy,\n and edifying conversation, 1 Thess. i. 10. 1 Tim. iv. 7, 8, 12, 16.\n vi. 11, 12. 2 Tim. ii. 1, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23. iii. 14. Tit. i. 7-9.\n ii. 7, 8. Matt. v. 16-48.\n\n II. It is plain from scripture-declarations, that Christ has appointed\n _rulers_ in his church that are _not appointed to preach_ the gospel,\n Rom. xii. 7, 8. Heb. xiii. 7, 17. Different gifts qualify men for\n teaching and for ruling, Eph. iv. 7. Such rulers are necessary for the\n assistance of pastors, Gal. ii. 9, 10. Acts vi. 2-4. Exod. xviii.\n 17-23.\u2014The complete form of every Christian congregation requires\n several elders, Acts xx. 17-38. xiv. 23. Christian churches have\n courts similar to those Jewish ones, which had the power of\n excommunication; and which consisted of _elders_ ruling as\n representatives of the congregation, Matt. xviii. 15-17. Num. xxxv.\n 24. Deut. xix. 12. Josh. xx. 4, 6. Exod. xii. 3, 21. by comparing of\n which texts we find that _congregation_ denotes _rulers_ of it. The\n SEVENTY use the very word ECCLESIA which is translated _church_ in\n Matt. xviii. 17.\u2014But the divine appointment of _ruling elders_ is\n still more evident, (1.) From Rom. xii. 5-8. where we find in the _one\n body_ of the gospel-church PROPHESYING, which includes _teaching_ and\n _exhortation_, which may correspond with teachers and pastors, Eph.\n iv. 11. and MINISTRY, answerable to the deacon that _gives_ out the\n church\u2019s charity, and _shews mercy_ in visiting the sick and\n imprisoned,\u2014and to the elder _that rules_ with diligence. Here\n _different gifts_, given to profit withal, infer different offices,\n Eph. iv. 7-11. 1 Cor. xii. 7, 8. Here is one that _rules_,\n characterized by different gifts and different work. (2.) From 1 Cor.\n xii. 28. where we find GOVERNMENTS, that is, _governors_, even as\n MIRACLES denote workers of miracles,\u2014set by God _in the_ Christian\n _church_. While they are represented as different from HELPS or\n deacons, Acts vi. 1-6. their designation of _governments_ marks that\n their office is chiefly, if not solely, executed in _ruling_. It much\n more properly denotes them _rulers_ of church-members, than mere\n managers of church-money.\u2014It is further observable, that God has set\n SOME, not ALL, _governments_ or _governors_ in the church. (3.) From a\n Tim. v. 17. where some _elders_ are represented as worthy of double\n honour, though they do no more than _rule well_, while others are\n represented as more worthy of double honour, because they not only\n _rule well_, but also _labour in word and doctrine_.\u2014All which elders\n belong to the church, Comp. chap. i. 19. iv. 14. iii. 15.\u2014KOPIONTES,\n _labouring_, doth not denote uncommon diligence, but the common duty\n of all gospel-ministers, 1 Cor. iii. 8. 1 Thess. v. 12. John iv.\n 38.\u2014MALISTA, _especially_,\u2014always in the New Testament distinguishes\n persons or things of the same general class, one from another, Acts\n xx. 38. xxiii. 26. xxvi. 3. Gal. vi. 10. Phil. iv. 22. 1 Tim. iv. 10.\n v. 8. 2 Tim. iv. 13. Tit. i. 10. Philem. 16. 2 Pet. ii. 10. Not only\n do most of the chief Fathers in the Christian church declare for\n _ruling elders_; but even Papists and Episcopalians, who inveigh\n against them, have a shadow of them, in their chancellors, officials,\n commissaries, wardens: and bishops having _no care of souls_, are _lay\n elders_, properly so called.\u2014Independents also manage most of their\n congregational affairs by a few of their number.\n\n The necessary qualifications of ruling elders are, (1.) True piety, 1\n Tim. iv. 12. 2 Tim. ii. 21, 22. (2.) Capacity for judging causes, 1\n Chron. xii. 32. Deut. i. 13. 1 Kings iii. 5-15. Isa. xi. 2-5. Numb.\n xi. 16, 17. (3.) Wisdom, prudence, and uprightness of conduct,\n connected with a good report from others, 1 Tim. iii. 1-8. Psalm ci.\n 2-8.\u2014Their ordination ought to be transacted in much the same manner\n as that of _teaching elders_ or pastors.\u2014Their duty in general is to\n _rule well_; particularly, (1.) In judging the agreeableness of\n doctrines to the word of God,\u2014judicially declaring what seems good to\n the Holy Ghost and to them, in controverted points of principle or\n practice, Acts xv. 28, 29. xvi. 4. Rev. ii. 2. Acts xx. 17-31. (2.) In\n admitting persons to church-fellowship on proper qualifications, Matt.\n xvi. 19. (3.) in directing or encouraging church-members to observe\n Christ\u2019s laws, for the honour of God and their own mutual edification,\n Heb. xiii. 7, 17. (4.) In taking care, that all the ordinances of the\n gospel be duly preserved in their purity and perfection, Song i. 7, 8.\n (5.) In carefully watching over the moral behaviour of\n church-members,\u2014instructing, admonishing, exhorting, comforting, or\n rebuking them, as they find cause, Heb. xiii. 17. (6.) In visiting the\n sick in body, or distressed in mind, Jam. v. 14. (7.) In making\n provision for the poor, or other expences necessary for promoting the\n _spiritual welfare_ of the congregation, Acts xi. 27-30. (8.) In\n judging the case of offenders and penitents, in order to censure the\n former, and absolve the latter, Matt. xviii. 15-18. xvi. 19. (9.) In\n regulating diets of fasting, thanksgiving, the Lord\u2019s supper, _&c._ 1\n Cor. xiv 26, 40.\n\n III. The divine appointment of DEACONS in the Christian church, is\n beyond dispute, Acts vi. 1-6. 1 Tim. iii. 8-11. Rom. xii. 8. 1 Cor.\n xii. 38. Phil. i. 1.\u2014They ought to be men of _honest report, full of\n the Holy Ghost_, and _of wisdom_, 1 Tim. iii. 8-10. Acts vi. 3.\u2014Their\n election and ordination ought not, in its manner, to differ from that\n of elders, Acts vi. 1-6.\u2014Their work is to manage the temporal affairs\n of the congregation relative to the table of the poor, the table of\n ministers, and the table of the Lord, Acts vi. 2. 1 Cor. xii. 28. No\n other work is annexed to their office in scripture. Hence though some\n of the first _seven deacons_, becoming evangelists, might preach and\n administer sacraments, yet none, _as deacons_, have any right to do\n so.\n\n There is no hint in scripture, that the offices of RULING ELDER and\n DEACON were designed to be _temporary_. Both of them were appointed on\n moral grounds and necessities respecting every church and period. The\n rules concerning them both are to be observed till the end of the\n world, 1 Tim. vi. 13, 14. No congregation can therefore answer to\n Jesus Christ, for _dropping_ of deacons, any more than for the\n _dropping_ of ruling elders.\n\n BROWN\u2019S SYSTEM.\n\nEND OF THE SECOND VOLUME.\n\n\n\n\n \u25cf Transcriber\u2019s Notes:\n \u25cb Missing or obscured punctuation was silently corrected.\n \u25cb The author\u2019s archaic punctuation and spellings have been retained.\n \u25cb Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only\n when a predominant form was found in this book.\n \u25cb Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).\n \u25cb Footnotes have been moved to follow the chapters in which they are\n referenced.","title":"A Body of Divinity, Vol. 2 (of 4): Wherein the doctrines of the Christian religion are explained and defended, being the substance of several lectures on the Assembly's Larger Catechism","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":306551}